Department of Sustainability & Environment Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 - Main Report

April 2008

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Background 4

3. Methodology 6 3.1 General 6 3.2 Review Reports 6 3.3 Beach Selection Criteria 6 3.4 Prioritising Criteria 7 3.5 Visual Inspection 7 3.6 Prioritise the Nourishment Projects 7 3.7 Determine Sand Demands and Quantities 8 3.8 Asset Register 8

4. Beach Assessment Criteria 10 4.1 General 10 4.2 Technical Criteria 10 4.3 Draft Social and Economic Criteria 11 4.4 Workshop 11 4.5 Final Social and Economic Criteria 12 4.6 Final Agreed Criteria 13 4.7 Scoring 14

5. Beach Assessment 16 5.1 Candidate Sites 16 5.2 Site Inspections 18 5.3 Assessment by Bayside Municipalities 19

6. Assessment Results 22 6.1 Technical Assessment 22 6.2 Social and Economic Assessment 24

7. Beach Priorities 26 7.1 General 26 7.2 Applying and Refining Social and Economic Assessment 26 7.3 Final Priority List 26

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 8. Sand Sourcing Analysis 30 8.1 General 30 8.2 Beaches at Risk Study 30 8.3 Channel Deepening as a Source of Nourishment Sand 31 8.4 Other Potential Sources of Sand 34 8.5 Feasibility of Searching for Offshore Sand Sources 37

9. Concept Design of High Priority Sites 40 9.1 Altona 40 9.2 Elwood 41 9.3 Mt Martha North 42 9.4 Portarlington 44 9.5 North Aspendale 44 9.6 Half Moon Bay 45 9.7 Eastern Beach Geelong 46 9.8 Scope of Work 46 9.9 Asset Register 47

10. Conclusions 48

11. Recommendations 50 11.1 Implementation 50 11.2 Sand Sourcing 50 11.3 Stabilisation Works 50

Table Index Table 1 Social and Economic Scoring and Comments Provided by DSE 20 Table 2 Technical Criteria Scoring 23 Table 3 Technical Ranking of the Beaches 24 Table 4 Summary of Final Beach Rankings 28 Table 5 Dredging Costs 35 Table 6 Altona Beach Coastal Management Options (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2003) 41 Table 7 Mt Martha North Beach Coastal Management Options (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2007) 43 Table 8 Scope of Work 46 Table 9 Beach Rankings 48

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Figure Index Figure 1 Location of sites in Port Phillip Bay 18 Figure 2 East End of Altona Beach 40 Figure 3 West End of Altona Beach 40 Figure 4 Elwood Beach View South 42 Figure 5 Elwood Beach View North 42 Figure 6 Mt Martha North Beach 43 Figure 7 Beach Erosion 43 Figure 8 Portarlington Beach 44 Figure 9 Cliff Damage 44 Figure 10 Sand Bag Erosion Protection 45 Figure 11 North Aspendale Beach 45 Figure 12 South End of Half Moon Bay 45 Figure 13 Half Moon Bay Beach 45 Figure 14 Eastern Beach 46 Figure 15 Eastern Beach 46

Appendices A References B Project Brief C Example Site Inspection Report Sheet D Site Inspection Reports E Complete Criterion Matrix F Asset Register Output

Volume 2 – Detailed Site Photographs

Cover photos: NASA, GHD

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 1 Volume 1 • Main Report 1. Introduction

In November 2006, the Victorian Government announced an allocation of $8 million over four years for the establishment of the Enhancing Our Beaches Program, which will deliver a range of nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay over the next four years. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (the Department) has engaged GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to conduct a review of previously identified nourishment projects, which is presented in this report. The objective of this Review is to provide a sound technical and social basis for assessing and prioritising the allocation of Enhancing Our Beaches program funding for beach nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay, by:

» updating the findings of the Beaches at Risk study of 2001; and

» reviewing and updating the priority list for beach nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay. The Beaches at Risk study required modifications to the recommendations to take into account works completed since 2001, reassess sand sourcing in light of the forthcoming Channel Deepening project and take into account other recent beach nourishment projects.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 2 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 3 Volume 1 • Main Report 2. Background

There were 25 beaches nourished around Port Phillip Bay during the 1970s and 1980s to protect natural and built coastal assets and other infrastructure from damage caused by coastal erosion. These and other Port Phillip Bay beaches have become highly valued recreational assets for the Victorian community. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) is responsible for the periodic maintenance of nourished and high risk beaches around Port Phillip Bay. In 2001 the Department commissioned the Beaches at Risk study to assess the condition of the 25 nourished beaches. The study found that most of the beaches would require some form of reconstruction and/or maintenance within 5 to 10 years from the time of the study (i.e. 2006 to 2011). Furthermore, this study assessed 18 more beaches which were identified as posing a risk of damage to public facilities, were characterised by unstable cliffs or would benefit by improving amenity, and where nourishment was identified as being a possible repair/rectification measure for these problems. The Association of Bayside Municipalities (ABM) also engaged in an exercise in preparing a set of social and economic criteria for selecting beaches for nourishment, which was reported by their consultant Reckon Pty Ltd (Reckon) in their report, Port Phillip Coast and Marine Planning Program, Sept 2001. After the release of the Beaches at Risk report, a priority list of beach nourishment projects within Port Phillip Bay was agreed upon with key stakeholders and endorsed by the then Minister for Environment. Some minor nourishment works have already been undertaken and delivery has commenced for major beach nourishment projects at Middle Park and Sandringham. Preliminary designs have also been prepared for Elwood, Brighton, Mentone, Altona, Eastern Beach, Moorpanyal, St Helens and Rippleside. In November 2006, the Victorian Government announced an allocation of $8 million over four years for the establishment of the Enhancing Our Beaches Program, which will deliver more nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay over the next four years. This review has considered 30 beach sites, accounting for a number of the original 43 identified sites which have since received some remedial attention, or which have since been considered as lower in priority than was suggested in 2001.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 4 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 5 Volume 1 • Main Report 3. Methodology

3.1 General Section 4 of the Project Brief (included in Appendix B) provides an outline scope of services for this project. The tasks undertaken in fulfilling the requirements of this scope were:

» Review previous reports;

» Review and confirm beach selection criteria;

» Develop criteria for prioritising actions (with DSE);

» Host a Workshop with ABM and DSE, with focus on social aspects;

» Conduct visual inspections of all nominated beaches and complete site reports;

» Prioritise beach projects with agreed criteria;

» Determine sand quantities for each project;

» Assess other infrastructure for each project;

» Develop an asset register for priority projects;

» Prepare study report; and

» Present study to DSE.

3.2 Review Reports A number of reports and studies have been reviewed, and are listed in Appendix A, References. In particular, this review focuses on the Beaches at Risk Final Report (Vantree, 2001). The Port of Melbourne Corporation’s Channel Deepening Project is an additional source of useful information, especially in relation to understanding the coastal processes operating in Port Phillip and the potential for securing suitable sources of sand from this dredging for beach nourishment around Port Phillip Bay. We have drawn relevant information from both the Environmental Effects Statement (2004) and the Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement (2007).

3.3 Beach Selection Criteria The Reckon report prepared for the Association of Bayside Municipalities in September 2001 sets out both social and economic criteria for assessing and selecting beach renourishment projects. The preparation of these criteria included extensive consultation and research, giving this work sound credibility. The report does, however, note that technical, functional and environmental considerations were not included, and the Beaches at Risk study should also be consulted for completing a set of criteria.

In close consultation with the Department, a re•assessment of the beach selection criteria, covering social, economic, technical and environmental aspects was

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 6 Volume 1 • Main Report undertaken. These criteria were developed into a criteria matrix for assessing each project.

3.4 Prioritising Criteria In conjunction with DSE, a set of criteria has been prepared to rank the priorities and urgency of each beach nourishment project. The attributes considered in developing these criteria were those nominated in Attachment A of the Project Brief:

» strategic importance;

» functionality;

» utilisation;

» condition; and

» urgency. These criteria have been broadly based on asset protection, recreational and community use and supporting infrastructure. These criteria have also taken into account the objectives previously stated for the Enhancing Our Beaches program. A workshop with representatives from the Association of Bayside Municipalities and the Department was arranged early in the Study. This workshop was conducted over a half day at GHD’s Melbourne office on the 7th of November 2007 and consisted of 15 participants. The objective of this workshop was to further develop the social and economic assessment criteria of each nourishment site, drawing on the criteria developed by Reckon/ABM in 2001.

3.5 Visual Inspection Physical inspection of all beaches nominated in the previous studies, as well as other beaches identified as possible candidates for renourishment, was undertaken. These beaches include all sites that have received treatment since 2001 so that a brief status report of each of these sites could be prepared. A standard reporting sheet was prepared to ensure a consistent and comprehensive inspection of the important aspects of each site for later assessment. Photographs were taken of each site and have been provided to support the site inspection reports. The findings from the site inspections together with the original assessments in the Beaches at Risk study was used to re•assess each site in the current climate.

3.6 Prioritise the Nourishment Projects The nourishment projects were prioritised by generating a priority ranking developed by applying the agreed selection criteria and then combining the outcomes from the ABM/DSE workshop. The criteria matrix was used to drive this process and prioritising decisions were used to finalise the priority list.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 7 Volume 1 • Main Report 3.7 Determine Sand Demands and Quantities Sand for renourishment has traditionally come from the Port Phillip seabed by dredging, and for some projects this may continue to be the case. Preliminary schematic designs for the highest priority projects have been prepared so that sand quantity, quality and supporting infrastructure could be identified for cost estimate purposes. Where appropriate, climate change vulnerability was taken into account during preliminary design. In addition, the feasibility of conducting an investigative search for suitable offshore sources of sand has been considered. A preliminary assessment of sand retention measures has also been made for the highest priority sites, based on experience gained at successful nourishment sites recently completed around the Bay.

3.8 Asset Register Using standard Department asset fields, asset register entries have been prepared for each priority site. These include sand quantity, quality, probable source, design life, and estimated costs for short•term (5 – 10 years) and long•term (25 – 30 years) measures. The cost estimates are based on recent experience with nourishment projects around the Bay and were developed as high•level estimates for budget costing purposes.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 8 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 9 Volume 1 • Main Report 4. Beach Assessment Criteria

4.1 General Prior to any inspections a set of beach selection criteria were developed from existing reports. This set of criteria provides the basis for selecting or rejecting beach sites for nourishment, within the forthcoming Enhancing Our Beaches funding program for beach nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay. Approximately, the criteria are broken into two halves: the technical/functional criteria and the social and economic criteria. There are 7 technical criteria that focus on aspects of the beach that can be measured and observed during a site inspection and recorded against a benchmark or standard. The 6 social and economic criteria on the other hand, require a more detailed knowledge of the daily operations of the beach and are more qualitative. . Combing the criteria will provide a comprehensive tool to enable the analysis and understanding of the candidate beaches and eventually form the basis for nourishment prioritisation.

4.2 Technical Criteria The Beaches at Risk report provides some guidance as to the appropriate technical and functional criteria to be applied to each site for selection or rejection. Technical and functional criteria incorporate the physical beach condition as well as issues relating to public risk, public facilities, foreshore land and the protection of environmental values. These criteria are generally measurable or able to be determined without extensive investigation. Utilising the Beaches at Risk report, along with the assistance of DSE, the following 7 criteria have been established:

4.2.1 Beach Condition The following three criteria focus on the physics state of the beach and how it is changing:

» Percentage of the beach length that has been eroded;

» Percentage of the beach width that has been eroded; and

» Estimated rate of erosion, percentage of beach lost due to erosion since 2001 Beaches at Risk report.

4.2.2 Risk to Assets Criteria adopted for measuring risk to assets are:

» Public Risk: unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and this danger can be significantly reduced by nourishing;

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 10 Volume 1 • Main Report » Public Facilities: public facilities (retaining wall, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains, underground services) at risk of damage, and this risk can be significantly reduced by nourishing; and

» Foreshore Land: foreshore land is at risk of erosion and this can be reduced by renourishment.

4.2.3 Protecting Environmental Values This criteria is designed to ensure that the nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely impact on the environment, increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment, nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site, nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change and the historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment.

4.3 Draft Social and Economic Criteria The social and economic criteria are designed to incorporate and give emphasis to those aspects of the beach that are not specifically related to its physical appearance. These criteria are intended to incorporate the following areas of importance:

» Importance of the beach to the local and wider community;

» Levels of use and possible alternatives if the beach is unavailable;

» Adequacy of existing infrastructure to support beach visitors;

» Role of community and local Council in managing the beach;

» Impact the beach has on the local economy; and

» Other economic/tourism benefits that flow from the beach. The Association of Bayside Municipalities prepared a report in September 2001, Port Phillip – Coastal and Marine Planning Program – Social and Economic Criteria for the Assessment of Beach Renourishment Projects. This report provides criteria for the social and economic aspects but does not, by its own admission, address technical and functional criteria. Given the nature of the social and economic criteria, it is difficult to assess these criteria during a site investigation without extensive involvement, and is more suited to being assessed by those most familiar with each beach. Thus it was proposed that each of the Municipalities would provide input into the rating of these criteria. In order to ensure the criteria are adequate and understood, a workshop involving all relevant parties was convened to discuss and finalise the criteria.

4.4 Workshop On the 7th of November 2007 a workshop was held to discuss the progress of the beach nourishment project. Hosted by GHD and DSE, members of the various Bayside municipalities were invited to attend, comment on and assist in the development of the final social and economic criteria.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 11 Volume 1 • Main Report 4.5 Final Social and Economic Criteria Below is a list of the finalised social and economic criteria as well as typical indicators to assist in rating each beach. During the workshop the criteria from the September 2001, Port Phillip – Coastal and Marine Planning Program – Social and Economic Criteria for the Assessment of Beach Renourishment Projects report were refined to slightly to aid understanding and the clarity of input information that was to be received from the participating municipalities.

4.5.1 Social Value Importance of the beach to the local and wider community:

» This location is the main beach area for sub•regional (i.e. from local or immediately adjoining municipalities) and regional beach goers (i.e. from western suburbs areas or inner suburban/outer suburban areas);

» The area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups; and

» The beach plays a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community.

4.5.2 Community Use Level of use and possible alternatives if the beach is unavailable:

» The condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak summer months;

» The beach is attracting increasing numbers of beach goers and visitors each year;

» Access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site;

» There are no alternative beaches or open space within close proximity; and

» The beach is considered safe for uses that are dependent on renourishment (eg swimming).

4.5.3 Supporting Infrastructure Adequacy of existing infrastructure to support beach visitors:

» Beach•related amenities (e.g. toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking water and signage) are sufficient and are well maintained;

» Parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months;

» The beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities;

» The beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails); and

» Good public transport is available to the beach area.

4.5.4 Community Management Role of community and local Council in managing the beach:

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 12 Volume 1 • Main Report » The foreshore area is well managed and maintained by the local Council/Committee of Management, including cleaning according to best practice guidelines;

» Council and local business, community and sorting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment project; and

» The Council/Committee of Management has adequate resources to maintain a renourished beach into the future.

4.5.5 Contribution to Local Economy Impact the beach has on the local economy:

» The presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy;

» Many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive; and

» Revenue from and expenditure on beach precinct has important implications for overall revenue for the local Council/Committee of Management.

4.5.6 Scope for Economic Development Other economic/tourism benefits that flow from the beach:

» Ongoing business, residential and commercial developments directly relate to the popularity of the foreshore area; and

» Potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services.

4.6 Final Agreed Criteria The final 13 criteria adopted for assessing the beaches are:

Technical Beach length Beach width Rate of erosion Public risk Public facilities Foreshore land Environmental value Social Social value Community use Supporting infrastructure Community management Economic Contribution to local economy Scope for economic development

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 13 Volume 1 • Main Report 4.7 Scoring The prioritisation of the beaches involves ranking them against the technical, social and economic criteria. For each of the 13 criteria, 7 technical and 6 social/economic, each beach has been scored depending on how applicable that criteria is to the specific beach. Once the beaches have been ranked against the criteria, each beach will go into a criteria matrix that has been prepared, see Appendix D. The matrix includes each of the selection criteria and how each beach ranks against them, and a subsequent total ranking and hence beach nourishment priority. A scoring arrangement has been included, which is expected to identify, initially, which beaches should be selected for further consideration and eventual prioritising. Each criterion requires a score of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating (most in need of nourishment) as shown:

» 5 = complete agreement with criterion

» 4 = mostly agrees with criterion

» 3 = partially agrees with criterion

» 2 = in some way agrees with criterion

» 1 = no agreement or disagreement with criterion There are 13 criteria, with possible scores for a beach ranging from 5 to 65. Within this matrix, weighting the score for each criterion was considered, but has not been adopted. The criteria set seem to be evenly distributed across both technical and social criteria, hence giving equal balanced consideration, and thus avoiding the need for weighting.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 14 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 15 Volume 1 • Main Report 5. Beach Assessment

5.1 Candidate Sites A list of beaches around Port Phillip Bay has been compiled from previous works and highlights those beaches around the Bay likely to be most in need or renourishment. The following is a list and a brief description of the 30 candidate sites in alphabetical order and Figure 1 illustrates their location around Port Phillip Bay:

Melway Beach Name and LGA Short Description Reference Altona – Hobsons Bay lengthy south•east facing beach 54, E12 Altona Coastal Park – heavily vegetated, poorly accessible 55, C9 Hobsons Bay south•east facing beach Blairgowrie – Mornington lengthy north•east facing beach 157, H12 Peninsula Brighton New St. – Bayside 1km long west facing beach 76, D3 Eastern Beach Geelong – short protected north facing beach 402, M3 Greater Geelong Elwood – Port Phillip 1km long south west facing beach 67, B5 Fishermans Beach – protected north•east facing beach 104, C12 Mornington Peninsula Half Moon Bay – Bayside short protected north•east facing 85, H2 beach Marina Cove – Mornington short, protected, poorly accessible 145, B2 Peninsula west facing beach McCrae Beach – Mornington lengthy north•west facing beach 159, B8 Peninsula Moorpanyal – Greater short protected south•east facing 442, E3 Geelong beach Mt Martha North – lengthy north•west facing beach 144, K10 Mornington Peninsula Mt Martha South • lengthy north•west facing beach 144, H12 Mornington Peninsula North Aspendale – Kingston lengthy south•west facing beach 92, F2 Parkdale – Kingston lengthy south•west facing beach 87, B10 Point Lonsdale – Borough of lengthy south•east facing beach 499, K4 Queenscliffe

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 16 Volume 1 • Main Report Melway Beach Name and LGA Short Description Reference Portarlington – Greater lengthy north facing beach 444, J6 Geelong Portsea – Mornington protected north•east facing beach 156, E2 Peninsula Queenscliff – Borough of lengthy east facing beach 499, H10 Queenscliffe Rippleside – Greater short, manmade, protected east 442, B10 Geelong facing beach Rosebud – Mornington short north•west facing beach 158, E11 Peninsula Rye – Mornington Peninsula lengthy north facing beach 168, G4 Shelleys Beach • Mornington poorly accessible north•east facing 156, H2 Peninsula beach Sorrento – Mornington lengthy north•east facing beach 157, C8 Peninsula St Helens – Greater short, manmade protected east facing 442, B9 Geelong beach St Leonards – Greater lengthy east facing beach 460, C10 Geelong Werribee South – Wyndham lengthy south•east facing beach 199, G11 West Rosebud – Mornington 1 km long north•west facing beach 169, J1 Peninsular Western Beach Geelong – short section of west facing cliff face 452, B2 Greater Geelong Williamstown – Hobsons short, protected south facing beach 56, A11 Bay

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 17 Volume 1 • Main Report Figure 1 Location of sites in Port Phillip Bay

5.2 Site Inspections The site inspections were carried out with the assistance of a standard site report sheet that encompassed the criteria outlined in Section 4. Appendix C shows a blank copy of the site inspection report sheet, while the completed report sheets for each of the sites can be found in Appendix D. The site reports were primarily focused to the gathering of information on the technical criteria while undertaking the inspection. Given each individual Municipality is likely to have a better understanding of the Social and Economic criteria relating to each beach, less emphasis has been put on gathering this information. However, relevant information visible during the inspection has been included on the report sheets. Before undertaking the 30 site inspections, the following preparation steps were undertaken:

» Became familiar with the 2001 Beaches At Risk report and the areas concentrated on in that report;

» Performed background investigation on the candidate beaches to become familiar with any previous studies/inspections.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 18 Volume 1 • Main Report » Prepared Melways maps to identify affected beaches;

» Identified the critical criteria to investigate; and

» Prepared a comprehensive site report sheet, as illustrated in Appendix C, to enable efficient, effective and consistent recording of critical information. At each site, the report sheets were filled out with all relevant criteria prompts commented on. Approximate measurements were taken where necessary. Photos of the beach and its relevant features were taken and are catalogued in Volume 2 of this Report to provide future reference and evidence for the site report. The detailed site reports, attached in Appendix D list the observations made during the site inspections for each site. The report encompasses each of the criteria including technical, social and economic, along with prompts and indicators to assist rating the criteria . A broad display of photographs have been included in Volume 2 for each of the selected beaches inspected. Volume 2 includes a Melways Map to illustrate the site location. Typically, the larger beaches with more features and those beaches displaying more symptoms of degradation have been more comprehensively catalogued.

5.3 Assessment by Bayside Municipalities Following the workshop, copies of the revised social and economic criteria were sent out to the Municipalities for them to provide comment and suggested scoring on each of their beaches. A DSE panel then reviewed these comments and indicative scores, and the final social and economic scores were concluded. The scores for each criteria have been totalled and the beaches ranked in order of priority, as shown in Table 1.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 19 Volume 1 • Main Report Table 1 Social and Economic Scoring and Comments Provided by DSE

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 20 Volume 1 • Main Report The assessment on the individual beaches made by the respective Municipalities provides first hand knowledge from a source that is most familiar with the particular beach and its operation. Having attended the workshop, representatives from each of the Municipalities have a greater understanding of the ranking process, and recognising that their submission would be reviewed and amended, if necessary, by DSE. This encouraged honest responses under each of the criteria rather than potentially rating each criteria 5 out of 5 without sufficient supporting evidence. Table 1 also illustrates the comments made by the DSE panel in response to the submissions made by each of the Municipalities. These indicate the level of consensus and any discrepancies.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 21 Volume 1 • Main Report 6. Assessment Results

6.1 Technical Assessment Table 2 shows the table of results for the technical criteria, while Table 3 illustrates the subsequent ranking of the beaches. As can be seen from the results, beaches that are more severely affected by erosion or those that pose a higher risk to the public and infrastructure, are ranked highest. Conversely those beaches that have not suffered adversely, or that have sustained their state from previous renourishment, are ranked lowest. All the beaches ranked in the top ten demonstrate significant areas of concern, whether it be based on one criterion or across multiple criteria. Altona for example, ranks highest because a significant portion of it length and width have been eroded away, in turn leading to other problems such as risk to public assets. Beach length and width are determined by estimating the average length and width of the current state of the beach and comparing it to the ideal or renourished state. In cases like Altona, Portarlington, St Helens and Rippleside, where 5 was score in one or both of these criteria, severe shortening and/or narrowing of the beach has occurred. Beaches such as Rosebud, Sorrento or Queenscliff, with scores of 1, have no signs of erosion and in some cases have accumulated sand. Rate of erosion is more difficult to estimate, given that it is compared to the status of the beach at the time of inspection for the 2001 Beaches at Risk report. A number of factors, such as the time of year the inspection is carried out and weather conditions, influence the likely state of the beach. However a thorough knowledge of the sand movement in Port Phillip Bay enables effective assessment on beach states and their likely erosion patterns. Beaches that pose a potential threat to the public have ranked highly in the public risk category. Marina Cove with its potentially unstable cliffs and the already sectioned off walkway along the cliff at Western Beach Geelong, each score 5. Flat and expansive beaches such as Queenscliff and Rosebud pose no threat to public risk and have a ranking of 1.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 22 Volume 1 • Main Report Technical/ Functional

Beach Value since 2001 Public Risk Beach width Beach length Environmental Rate of erosion Foreshore Land Public Facilities

Elwood Port Phillip 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 27 Brighton New St Bayside 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 21 Half Moon Bay Bayside 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 22 Parkdale Kingston 2 2 1 2 4 2 4 17 North Aspendale Kingston 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 25 Fishermans Beach Mornington Peninsula 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 19 Marina Cove Mornington Peninsula 3 3 2 5 3 2 2 20 Mt Martha North Mornington Peninsula 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 29 Mt Martha South Mornington Peninsula 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 16 McCrae Beach Mornington Peninsula 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 23 Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 10 West Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 14 Rye Mornington Peninsula 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 16 Blairgowrie Mornington Peninsula 3 4 1 3 4 2 4 21 Sorrento Mornington Peninsula 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 17 Shelleys Beach Mornington Peninsula 4 5 3 4 5 3 1 25 Portsea Mornington Peninsula 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 21 Point Lonsdale Borough of Queenscliffe 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 19 Queenscliff Borough of Queenscliffe 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 14 St Leonards Greater Geelong 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 22 Portarlington Greater Geelong 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 28 Eastern Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 3 3 3 2 3 3 5 22 Western Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 1 1 1 5 5 5 2 20 Rippleside Greater Geelong 4 5 2 3 4 3 3 24 St Helens Greater Geelong 5 4 2 4 4 3 3 25 Moorpanyal Greater Geelong 4 3 2 4 1 4 3 21 Werribee South Wyndham 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 23 Altona Hobsons Bay 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 30 Altona Coastal Park Hobsons Bay 3 2 2 1 2 4 2 16 Williamstown Hobsons Bay 2 2 1 2 4 2 3 16

Table 2 Technical Criteria Scoring

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 23 Volume 1 • Main Report Score Beach Ranking Municipality Total Technical Total

Altona Hobsons Bay 30 1 Mt Martha North Mornington Peninsula 29 2 Portarlington Greater Geelong 28 3 Elwood Port Phillip 27 4 North Aspendale Kingston 25 5 Shelleys Beach Mornington Peninsula 25 5 St Helens Greater Geelong 25 5 Rippleside Greater Geelong 24 8 McCrae Beach Mornington Peninsula 23 9 Werribee South Wyndham 23 9 Half Moon Bay Bayside 22 11 St Leonards Greater Geelong 22 11 Eastern Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 22 11 Brighton New St Bayside 21 14 Blairgowrie Mornington Peninsula 21 14 Portsea Mornington Peninsula 21 14 Moorpanyal Greater Geelong 21 14 Marina Cove Mornington Peninsula 20 18 Western Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 20 18 Fishermans Beach Mornington Peninsula 19 20 Point Lonsdale Borough of Queenscliffe 19 20 Parkdale Kingston 17 22 Sorrento Mornington Peninsula 17 22 Mt Martha South Mornington Peninsula 16 24 Rye Mornington Peninsula 16 24 Altona Coastal Park Hobsons Bay 16 24 Williamstown Hobsons Bay 16 24 West Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 14 28 Queenscliff Borough of Queenscliffe 14 28 Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 10 30 Table 3 Technical Ranking of the Beaches

6.2 Social and Economic Assessment The comments and scores provided under each of the social and economic criteria in Table 1 reflect both the importance of the beach within the Municipality and the level of concern about the state of the beach. Table 1 shows there are a number of beaches that have been acknowledged by the relevant Municipalities, and subsequently by the DSE, to have a low priority for beach nourishment at this point in time. No submissions were provided for these beaches, and consequently received a social and economic score of 0. As expected, the beaches that are deemed important in terms of social value and community use, that are well managed, that have sufficient supporting infrastructure

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 24 Volume 1 • Main Report and that contribute to the local economy and economic development, have scored highly. Altona and Elwood, ranked equal first, both perform very well in the social criteria and provide some economic benefits for the community. Both are large are extremely popular beaches that are well managed and have significant supporting infrastructure. Smaller, less accessible beaches such as Marina Cove and Shelleys Beach tend to perform poorly under the social and economic criteria. This is generally due to lack of size and access to the general public, and hence the limited investment and surrounding infrastructure to support the beach. Due to their restricted popularity they have little impact of the community economy. In this case, Marina Cove and Shelleys Beach happen to be surrounded by numerous larger and more accessible beaches that provide adequate alternatives for the public. With the input received from the Municipalities, and DSE having finalised each beach’s ranking under each of the criteria. Social and economic rankings can now be combined with the technical ranking to determine a final priority ranking list.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 25 Volume 1 • Main Report 7. Beach Priorities

7.1 General Once the technical, social and economic scores were calculated a total score was used to represent the relevant priority of each beach and its likelihood of receiving further investigation. We expect this task to identify a set of highest priority projects (up to four major projects with an expected design life of 25 to 30 years, and up to four minor projects with an expected design life of 5 to 10 years) as preferred candidates for detailed design and implementation.

7.2 Applying and Refining Social and Economic Assessment The social and economic assessment process was undertaken by parties with the greatest knowledge of the specific beaches so as to ensure the most definitive assessment was made. As discussed in Section 4, the criteria that were defined during the workshop were sent to the Municipalities representing each beach. These criteria were commented on and a representative score was given, with the results being sent to DSE. A specially selected DSE panel carried out a comprehensive review of the submissions, with the summary of the results shown in Table 1. The comments in the table reflect the view of the DSE panel on each of the submissions. The complete breakdown of the scores for each of the six social and environmental criteria is attached in Appendix D.

7.3 Final Priority List The final priority list is made up of a combination of the total scores from the technical criteria scores and the social and economic criteria. The total technical score, as assessed by GHD, is made up of 7 categories and has a potential score of between 5 and 35. The social and economic total, reviewed and finalised by the DSE panel, is made up of 6 categories and scores can range from 0 to 30 (0 represents non• submission by the relevant Municipality). Thus the total scores that determine each beach’s priority ranking, can range from 5 to 65. Table 4 shows some distinct groups when the technical and social/economic scores are totalled and the beaches are ranked in order of overall priority. The sites fall into five distinct score categories:

7.3.1 Greater than 50 These are the overall highest priority beaches (shown in red). As can be seen, both Altona and Elwood scored in the highest group for both technical and social/economic • with Altona scoring the highest ranking in both categories. Both beaches will be considered for nourishment and further design.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 26 Volume 1 • Main Report 7.3.2 45 to 50 The second tier beaches (shown in dark orange) are considered a good chance of being considered for nourishment works. These beaches generally scored well in both technical and social/economic categories, however may have lacked a little in a particular area.

7.3.3 40 to 45 These beaches will be considered if the beaches in the higher priority categories are deemed not feasible following further investigation or change in circumstances. These beaches usually score well in one of the two categories, or satisfactory in both.

7.3.4 20 to 40 These beaches (shown in yellow) will generally not to be considered for future investigation unless circumstances change. These beaches generally scored poorly in one or both of the technical and social/economic areas.

7.3.5 Under 20 The beaches (shown in blue) are not considered as candidates for further investigation. These beaches were not considered after submissions from Municipalities were not received, suggesting they are considered lower priority than comparative beaches.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 27 Volume 1 • Main Report Table 4 Summary of Final Beach Rankings

Beach Municipality Technical Social Total Ranking

Altona Hobsons Bay 30 24 54 1 Elwood Port Phillip 27 24 51 2 Mt Martha North Mornington Peninsula 29 17 46 3 Portarlington Greater Geelong 28 17 45 4 Half Moon Bay Bayside 22 21 43 5 North Aspendale Kingston 25 18 43 5 Eastern Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 22 21 43 5 Portsea Mornington Peninsula 21 22 43 5 Brighton New St Bayside 21 21 42 9 McCrae Beach Mornington Peninsula 23 18 41 10 St Helens Greater Geelong 25 16 41 10 Werribee South Wyndham 23 18 41 10 Blairgowrie Mornington Peninsula 21 19 40 13 Point Lonsdale Borough of Queenscliffe 19 21 40 13 St Leonards Greater Geelong 22 18 40 13 Western Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 20 20 40 13 Rippleside Greater Geelong 24 16 40 13 Shelleys Beach Mornington Peninsula 25 11 36 18 Moorpanyal Greater Geelong 21 15 36 18 Fishermans Beach Mornington Peninsula 19 16 35 20 Queenscliff Borough of Queenscliffe 14 20 34 21 Marina Cove Mornington Peninsula 20 7 27 22 Parkdale Kingston 17 0 17 23 Sorrento Mornington Peninsula 17 0 17 23 Mt Martha South Mornington Peninsula 16 0 16 25 Rye Mornington Peninsula 16 0 16 25 Altona Coastal Park Hobsons Bay 16 0 16 25 Williamstown Hobsons Bay 16 0 16 25 West Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 14 0 14 29 Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 10 0 10 30 The seven highest priority beaches, as shown in Table 4, are discussed further in detail in Section 10. A preliminary investigation and concept design have been undertaken to determine the feasibility of potential nourishment projects.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 28 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 29 Volume 1 • Main Report 8. Sand Sourcing Analysis

8.1 General Sand for renourishment has historically come from the Port Phillip seabed by dredging, and for some projects this may continue to be the case. At the present time, an offshore sand source is being used to nourish Sandringham Beach at Royal Avenue by dredging. Recent experience at Beacon Cove and Brighton (Middle Brighton Pier/Shared Pathway), however, demonstrates that, for the very northern end of the Bay, sand needs to be supplied from on•shore sources due to a lack of reliable offshore borrow sites. There is a possibility that the Port of Melbourne Corporation’s Channel Deepening Project may be able to supply suitable sand at the southern end of the Bay, and this opportunity for sand supply is discussed below. In considering the demands for sand from viable sources, a general principal applies, where sand grain size normally needs to be the same size or coarser than the native beach sand grain size. If finer sand is used, groyne structures or other means of anchoring the sand is usually needed, and a larger volume of sand is normally provided to allow for some losses over time. All sand sources also need to be tested to establish any presence of contamination, which would prevent the sand from being used for nourishment. The feasibility of conducting an investigative search for suitable offshore sources of sand is also discussed below. A preliminary assessment of sand sizes, quantities and retention measures has been made (in Section 10) for the highest priority sites, based on experience gained at successful nourishment sites recently completed around the Bay.

8.2 Beaches at Risk Study This study made extensive use of a bay•wide seabed sediments survey conducted by Beasley in 1966, and other surveys undertaken between 1970 and 1990. The general conclusions drawn were:

» Sand which has accumulated in the southern end of the bay, typically in and around the South Channel area, is medium to fine grained sand, which would be suitable for nourishing beaches in the southern part of the Bay, including beaches in Corio Bay;

» In the northern part of the Bay (typically north of Frankston on the east side and north of Little River on the west side), there are intermittent deposits of coarse sand suitable for beach nourishment of the northern beaches. These deposits need to be more specifically identified by investigations to confirm their location and extent; and

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 30 Volume 1 • Main Report » A brief discussion of land•sourced sand for nourishment was provided – the conclusion drawn was that suitable sand was rare and costs of transporting are high. This study also assessed the dredging methods needed to win sand from offshore sources and concluded that a two•stage dredging process would be needed in most cases. This involves a trailer suction hopper dredge to excavate material from the source and place it in a re•handling area offshore from and close to the beach being renourished. Then utilising a cutter suction dredge this sand would be recovered from the re•handling area, pumping to shore to nourish the beach. However, this dredging technique is unlikely to be cost•effective, due to the high mobilisation costs associated with two dredges. The availability of dredging plant locally was the primary factor controlling the cost of obtaining sand from the Port Phillip Bay seabed. This study also briefly discussed the expectation of dredging the shipping channels and possibly using this project as a source of suitable sand. No firm conclusions were drawn from this discussion. In more recent years, suitable trailer suction hopper dredges have become less available, with no dredges of this type currently based in Victoria. It is understood the closest Australian•based trailer suction hopper dredge operates on the Queensland Gold Coast. A similar dredge operates in New Zealand and can be available to work in Australia. A number of cutter suction dredges operate in Port Phillip Bay, based in Queenscliff.

8.3 Channel Deepening as a Source of Nourishment Sand There is a possibility that the Channel Deepening Project may be able to supply suitable sand at the southern end of the Bay. The feasibility of this source has been examined here, based on information contained in the Environmental Effects Statement (EES) and the Supplementary EES for the Channel Deepening Project.

8.3.1 Port Phillip Bay Beach Design Project In 2002, DSE conducted the Port Phillip Bay Beach Design Project, which included investigation of the viability of utilising dredge spoil as a low•cost option for beach fill at eight high•priority sites around the Bay. A detailed report on this Project was provided to the Coasts & Ports Australasia Conference in 2003, by Zoe Toogood (DSE), Peter Riedel (Coastal Engineering Solutions) and Gerry Byrne (Vantree). With the expectation that the Channel Deepening Project may be implemented in the then foreseeable future, DSE was keen to assess the potential for utilising suitable spoil from this project, as well as from regular maintenance dredging programmes undertaken by the then Victorian Channels Authority (since amalgamated into the Port of Melbourne Corporation) and Parks Victoria, for beach nourishment projects around the Bay. There was, at this time, a clear expectation that the Channel Deepening Project would generate in the order of 30 million cubic metres of spoil, a significant proportion of which was expected to be fine to medium sand from the South Channel.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 31 Volume 1 • Main Report The current estimate of quantities of sand to be dredged from the South Channel as part of the Channel Deepening Project is 14.6 million cubic metres (in•situ volume). All of this material has been classified as uncontaminated sand.

Toogood, Riedel and Byrne concluded that, while opportunities exist to re•use South Channel dredge spoil as fill for beach nourishment projects in Port Phillip Bay, it will not always be a viable option. Factors working against viability include:

» Differences between the physical characteristics of the dredged spoil and the native beach sediments (grain size, colour, shell content, etc.);

» Excessive cost due to excessive steaming distances between the point of spoil generation and final destination;

» Offshore bathymetry will restrict access to within reasonable onshore pumping distances at some sites; and

» The costs of land•based sources of sand may be competitive for some sites. The conclusions were:

» South Channel dredge spoil would be a cost•effective option for nourishment of several beaches in the Geelong area, including Eastern Beach, St Helens and Rippleside;

» South Channel dredge spoil could also be used to nourish Altona Beach, where it would be a comparatively expensive source of beach fill, but may become more attractive if cheaper alternatives are discarded on social or environmental grounds; and

» South Channel dredge spoil would not be considered to be a viable source of fill for nourishment of Moorpanyal, Mentone, Brighton or Elwood beaches, primarily due to the need for sand coarser than available from the South Channel. Comparatively high cost was also a contributing factor to reaching this conclusion.

8.3.2 Channel Deepening Environment Effects Statement In 2004, the Port of Melbourne Corporation released for Panel Hearing purposes the Channel Deepening Project (EES), prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. This document assessed the alternatives available for the use of dredged material. In considering the volume of uncontaminated sand to be dredged from the South Channel, a total of seven alternative uses were identified and assessed. These were:

» Beach renourishment/coastal protection;

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 32 Volume 1 • Main Report » Creation of environmental island for avifauna habitat/storm haven;

» Extension of near shore habitat;

» Creation of marine habitat in or around Capel Sound;

» Island off St Kilda;

» Use by industry; and

» Use as commercial garden soil. While significant social benefits were identified for the use of sand for beach renourishment, the EES concluded that technical and economic disbenefits outweighed the benefits. The assessment stated that: “It is evident that beach renourishment could utilise only a small proportion (0.5 million m3) of the total quantity of dredged material (32.1 million m3) that would be generated by the Project. It is also likely to be a relatively expensive operation, given the need to either double•handle (via placement at temporary sites) the material or use additional equipment to transport it. The reuse of dredged material for the renourishment of individual beaches around the Bay has not been recommended for further consideration, because work undertaken to date (both prior to, and as part of this EES) has shown that the sand from the project is not compatible for a number of the beaches that require renourishment. Where the sand is compatible, other work undertaken has identified other sand sources that are closer or more cost•effective than those available from the Project. However, given the importance of beach renourishment to bayside residents and other beach users, PoMC will continue to work with the Victorian Government agencies and local Councils to investigate future beach renourishment around the Bay. It is not recommended at this stage. “ The Supplementary EES for this project, completed in 2007, includes a more detailed evaluation of dredged material management options (refer SEES, Appendix 23, Golder Associates, Jan, 2007). This report concludes that: The recommended use for Type II material [2.1 million m3 of uncontaminated coarse to fine sand] is in construction of a constraining cap for one of the DMGs. Beach renourishment would be a viable option if a proponent identifies a project of sufficient size. All Type II material will be used for within•project beneficial use (PMDMG cap). This means that the “best” sand from the South Channel will all be allocated to capping the Port Melbourne Dredge Material Ground, which is the target DMG to receive

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 33 Volume 1 • Main Report

contaminated sediments dredged from the Yarra River, and will not be available for beach nourishment. Type III material (13 million m3 of uncontaminated fine sand to silty/clayey sand) is unlikely to be suitable for beach nourishment because of poor proximity to target beaches, poor match of grain size and incompatible project timing. Consequently, most of this material is proposed to be disposed into the southern Dredged Material Ground off Mt Martha. A primary constraint to utilising dredged spoil from the Channel Deepening Project is the project’s timing for approval and start. The current status of this Project is understood to have all approvals in place, and dredging has commenced on schedule in February 2008. Dredging of the South Channel is scheduled to commence in March 2008 and continue for three months. In the foreseeable future, the Channel Deepening Project is not considered to be a viable source of beach nourishment sand because:

The cost of rehandling and transporting the sand is very high, in comparison to the costs for other sources; and

The sand is too fine in grading to be suitable for most beaches, except possibly for beaches in the southern part of Port Phillip Bay. Geotechnical investigations of the South Channel has found the sand to be predominantly less than 0.2 mm in size. It should be noted that Mount Martha North Beach has been identified as a high-priority candidate for nourishment (refer Section 7), and this site is about 4 km from the proposed South East Dredge Material Ground, which will be used to receive all dredged material from the South Channel. This Dredge Material Ground may, depending on a number of factors, be feasible as a source of sand for this target beach. The driving factors include:

Suitability of sand size, colour and shell content;

The depth of water at the Ground;

Whether the cost of recovering the sand is competitive with other sand sources.

8.4 Other Potential Sources of Sand

8.4.1 Sand from Offshore Sources As previously stated, sand for beach nourishment has historically come predominantly from offshore seabed sources, recovered by cutter suction dredging and pumped to the target beach. This was the technique used for major projects such as Sandridge Beach and Hampton Beach, and is now being used for the Royal Avenue project. For an offshore sand source to be economical, it needs to be located no further than about 2 km from the target beach, so that a cutter suction dredge can pump the sand slurry directly to the beach. Even over a distance of 2k m, a booster pump is normally required. Without a booster pump, a cutter suction dredge has a capacity to pump about 1 km.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 34 Volume 1 - Main Report The other limiting parameter is water depth to the seabed. Medium•size cutter suction dredges (300 to 350 mm) are commonly limited in the depth they can dredge to about 8 m, although some can dredge as deep as 15 m. The cost of recovering sand from an offshore source will be dependent on a combination of the following factors:

» Mobilisation and demobilisation of dredging plant;

» The pumping distance from the source site to the target beach;

» The quantity of sand taken from the source;

» The reliability of the source to readily provide suitable sand, over a compact area and in a reasonable thickness below the seabed (at least 1 m thick is desirable);

» Depth of water above the source site; and

» Weather delays. For determining preliminary estimates of cost for the high•priority projects assessed in Section 9, the following rates have been adopted for a cutter suction dredge operation:

Table 5 Dredging Costs

Activity Cost, $

Mobilisation & demobilisation 150,000

Unit rate per cubic metre, up to 20,000 m3 15.00

Unit rate per cubic metre, greater than 20,000 m3 12.00

8.4.2 Sand from Land Sources Sand from land sources, in particular from commercial sand quarries, can and have been used for beach nourishment in the past. Suitable sand of the right grading and colour is often difficult to find near to target beaches, and transportation costs can be high. Land•based sand usually has a broad grading and is therefore very useful as a construction material for road base and concrete. Conversely, sand for beach nourishment needs to have a narrow grading around the design particle size and to achieve this sand from a land source usually has to be processed to remove the finer fractions. This also adds to the cost of the sand. Typical cost for sand obtained from a land•based source is $40.00/m3.

8.4.3 Project•Specific Studies (a) Sandridge Beacon Cove

In October 2003, Mirvac Beacon Cove commissioned a study to investigate the potential use of marine sand as a source for Stage 8 of the beach nourishment works at Sandridge, Beacon Cove. The Stage 8 coastal strip extends from Princes Pier to the Rosny Street groyne. The estimated quantity of sand was 100,000 m3.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 35 Volume 1 • Main Report A detailed assessment of the costs and practicalities of obtaining this quantity of sand from seabed sources by dredging for this project was undertaken. A number of potential borrow sites were identified, including locations off Sandringham/Hampton and the South Channel. No viable sites directly off Sandridge were identified, based on previous investigation work undertaken in this area. A primary recommendation from this study was to conduct further site investigations of a number of sites located offshore from Sandringham/Hampton, to better determine the presence of and extent of suitable sources of winnable sand. An important component of this study was an assessment of the approvals needed to secure this source of material for this project. A timeframe of at least five months was estimated for obtaining a Planning Permit, with a further three to six months needed if objections were received and VCAT was needed to decide the matter. In addition, consent under the Coastal Management Act would be needed, and this would need the Planning Permit in place for consent to be granted. Construction of this project proceeded in 2004 and was completed in 2005. Sand sourced from a land•based quarry source was identified as the preferred sand sourcing option, and this method was adopted to construct the beach. (b) Brighton Shared Pathway

In 2005, the Brighton Shared Pathway was completed, including a series of rock groynes and sand placement to create a new beach between the new shared pathway and the properties abutting the coast. Construction of the beach involved the sourcing of about 7,500 m3 of sand, and an assessment of possible sources was investigated during development of the Project. In particular, historical information of the seabed offshore from the site strongly indicated that no offshore sources of suitable sand existed in the vicinity of the Brighton site. Consequently, land•sourced sand was supplied for this project, at a cost of about $35/m3 (2004 prices). (c) Royal Avenue, Sandringham Vantree (April 2002) conducted a study for the foreshore protection of Sandringham Beach at Royal Avenue, primarily focusing on beach nourishment. This beach nourishment and cliff stabilisation project is currently underway. Vantree’s report discusses potential sources of suitable sand for this project, and describes their search for a suitable offshore sand source. An extensive two•phase investigation located a borrow area about 1.5 km offshore from the beach nourishment site. Further investigations and testing were then undertaken to establish the grain size grading of the source sand and the presence of any contamination. It is understood this source will be used to obtain about 20,000 m3 of sand using a cutter suction dredge for the forthcoming nourishment of the Royal Avenue beach, as part of the current DSE Royal Avenue project.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 36 Volume 1 • Main Report 8.4.4 Other Possible Sources Around the bay, other potential sources of sand become available from time to time for beach nourishment. These include:

» Sand extracted from landfill sites to create new landfill cells. Mornington Peninsula Shire is understood to undertake such activities occasionally at Rye, with sand from this site used for beach nourishment in 1998; and

» Sand extracted from construction sites close to target beaches. As noted previously, sand properties and quantities need to be confirmed to ensure sand from such sources is suitable for beach nourishment.

8.5 Feasibility of Searching for Offshore Sand Sources

8.5.1 Criteria for Offshore Sources An offshore sand source needs to satisfy the following criteria:

» Should be within 2 km of the target beach, so that recovery operations by dredging are efficient and can deliver the sand directly to the beach without double•handling. A 2 km pumping distance would still need assistance by utilising a booster pump;

» Sand needs to be similar in grain size or coarser to the existing sand on the target beach, to remain stable on the beach for a reasonable time. Finer sand may be used, but would need to be provided in a larger quantity to compensate for some losses over time by erosion;

» Other sand properties, such as colour and shell content should be compatible with the parent sand;

» Sand must comply with limits for contamination;

» The thickness of the sand layer on the seabed needs to be at least 1 m to provide efficient dredging conditions; and

» An adequate quantity needs to be available, including substantial contingency, to complete the nourishment.

8.5.2 Investigation Methods Investigations of potential offshore sand sources are normally undertaken in two stages. Initially, a broad search of areas within about a 2 km radius of the target beach is conducted, with disturbed samples of the surface of the seabed taken for preliminary analysis. The preferred method of sampling uses a piston sampler or grab sampler operated from a boat or a vibrocore rig. These samples are recovered and tested in the laboratory for grain size and contamination. This exercise provides an initial understanding of the distribution of possible sand within reasonable distance from the target beach. The second stage involves a more thorough investigation of selected areas, using diver support to recover undisturbed samples from the seabed up to a depth of one or more metres. Alternatively, a barge•mounted drilling rig can be used, but this is

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 37 Volume 1 • Main Report invariably very costly because of the high mobilisation costs compared to a diver• based investigation. These samples are analysed in the laboratory for grain size, colour and shell content are also visually assessed. Further testing for contamination is also normally undertaken. This stage of the investigation may need to cover two or more smaller plots, before sand of adequate extent and thickness is identified. Mapping of the sampling locations using GPS enables a more detailed understanding of the extent of suitable sand. This information can then be used to estimate the available reserves of suitable sand in the borrow area.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 38 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 39 Volume 1 • Main Report 9. Concept Design of High Priority Sites

Initial concept designs have been completed for each of the seven highest priority beaches, as determined by the criteria scoring previously discussed. The concept design includes a description of the proposed works, quantity of sand required, cost estimate and any other works that may be required where relevant. These concept designs have primarily been drawn from the Beach Nourishment Preliminary Design Reports prepared for these sites by Coastal Engineering Solutions in 2003.

9.1 Altona See Coastal Engineering Solutions – Beach Nourishment Preliminary Designs

Altona Beach, shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 has a long history of nourishment activities to maintain the beach. Altona Beach’s native sediment consists of medium fine sand but was nourished with coarse sand which was placed on the west side of Altona pier in the late 1980s, most of which still remains today (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2003). More recently, silty fine sand from capital and maintenance dredging of Altona Safe Harbour was placed between Romawi and Rose Streets in front of the seawall, which is in danger of being undermined and ultimately collapsing. However, this material is continually eroding and does not provide a recreational beach. There are no known suitable sand reserves offshore in the vicinity of Altona Beach and therefore is not an option for nourishment. Coastal Engineering Solutions (2003) describes various different beach management options, which are summarized in Table 6.

Figure 2 East End of Altona Beach Figure 3 West End of Altona Beach

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 40 Volume 1 • Main Report Table 6 Altona Beach Coastal Management Options (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2003)

Coastal Description Estimated Management Cost, $ Option

By•pass Laverton Collect 45,000 m3 of sand from Laverton $375,000 Creek Creek using dragline and/or excavator and truck to Southern Altona Beach over 20 years

Pump sand from the Dredge 45,000 m3 of medium fine sand and $625,000 spits to the south of pump to Altona Beach Laverton Creek

Port of Melbourne When PoMC performs maintenance or capital $1,375,000 Corporation (PoMC) dredging at South Channel as part of the South Channel Sand Channel Deepening Project, 45,000 m3 of medium find sand could be transported to a rehandling area in deep water off Altona

Coarse sand from Coarse sand could be taken from the offshore $700,000 offshore deposits deposits between Brighton and Sandringham

Groynes (90 m long) Use four 90 m long groynes to contain $1,375,000 medium fine sand

Groynes (70 m long) Use four 70 m long groynes to contain coarse $1,163,000 sand

Training Wall Create beach in front of existing shoreline $2,125,000 consisting of 50,000 m3 of PoMC Channel Deepening Project dredged material and protect it using a rock training wall

Note: Cost increased by 10 % from values reported in 2003 by Costal Engineering Solutions to account for inflation and includes 25% contingency. The cost does not include detail design and construction management. The recommended coastal management option may vary depending on the level of funding available and the distribution amongst other high priority beaches. However, it is recommended that the beach be nourished with 45,000 m3 of sand from the offshore deposit and four 90 m long groynes are installed to contain the nourishment. Thus, the estimated cost for the works is in the order of $2,075,000 including 25 % contingency but not including detail design or construction management.

9.2 Elwood See Coastal Engineering Solutions – Beach Nourishment Preliminary Designs Elwood beach (Figure 4 and Figure 5) has also been in poor shape for the last two decades and is estimated to be losing on average 1,000 m3 per year (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2003). The sediment at Elwood is the same as Brighton, coarse sand with a median grain size diameter of about 0.8 mm.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 41 Volume 1 • Main Report Coastal Engineering Solutions (2003) developed one option for Elwood Beach, which consists of placing 40,000 m3 of coarse sand from a borrow area about 3 km offshore of the Elwood Beach and extending Point Ormond groyne by about 70 m. The associated cost for these works was estimated to be $1,175,000, which has been increased from the value reported by Coastal Engineering Solutions in 2003 to account for inflation and includes a 25 % contingency. The cost does not include detail design or construction management.

Figure 4 Elwood Beach View South Figure 5 Elwood Beach View North

9.3 Mt Martha North See Coastal Engineering Solutions – Mt Martha North Beach Coastal Erosion & Remediation, 2007 In the past the sand movement between Mt Martha North and South was balanced. However, since 2000, sediment transport has been moving consistently from Mt Martha North to Mt Martha South causing Mt Martha North to erode as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Mt Martha Beach primarily consists of coarse sand with median grain size ranging from about 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm. (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2007) A number of nourishment options have been discussed by Coastal Engineering Solutions (2007) and are summarized in Table 7.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 42 Volume 1 • Main Report Figure 6 Mt Martha North Beach Figure 7 Beach Erosion

Table 7 Mt Martha North Beach Coastal Management Options (Coastal Engineering Solutions, 2007)

Coastal Description Estimated Management Cost, $ Option

Beach Reshaping Remove 5,000 m3 of sediment from Mt Martha $90,000 South Beach and place at Mt Martha North Beach

Groyne Construct a 25 m long groyne at the northern $85,000 end of Mt Martha North Beach.

Breakwater Construct an offshore breakwater opposite $84,000 Alice Street.

Note: Cost increased from values reported in 2007 by Costal Engineering Solutions to account for inflation and includes 25% contingency. The cost does not include detail design and construction management. After reviewing these options it is recommended that at the very least 5,000 m3 of material be removed from the south end of Mt Martha South using an excavator and trucked to Mt Martha North. In addition, it is recommended that a groyne approximately 25 m long with a crest level of about 1 to 1.5 m be constructed at the northern end of Mt Martha North Beach. This groyne will trap sand and in turn provide a longer•term solution. The estimated cost for the proposed works is $175,000. This cost has been increased from the values reported in 2007 by Coastal Engineering Solutions to account for inflation and includes 25 % contingency. The cost does not include detailed design or construction management.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 43 Volume 1 • Main Report 9.4 Portarlington Sand moves up the west coast of the Bay from Point Lonsdale and Queenscliff. However, since the Portarlington Breakwater was built in the 1950s the westward sand passage has been interrupted. As a result a large deposit has accreted in the harbour immediately east of the jetty (Figure 8). Further east however, the beach has almost been completely washed westward with the cliffs and some infrastructure being exposed and eroded (Figure 9). It is estimated that the nourishment of this large stretch of exposed cliffs would require 35,000 – 50,000 m3 of sediment with grain size ranging from about 0.6 mm to 0.2 mm. However it is recommended that Portarlington be investigated further as a potential site for cliff stabilisation and erosion works, where it may qualify for other funding and a more permanent solution. The estimated cost for 35,000 m3 of nourishment is in the order of $1,040,000 including 25 % contingency but not including detail design or construction management.

Figure 8 Portarlington Beach Figure 9 Cliff Damage

9.5 North Aspendale See Vantree Pty Ltd in associated with Coastal Engineering Solutions – Beaches at Risk, Final Report, December 2001 North Aspendale Beach (Figure 10 and Figure 11) is a lengthy south•west facing beach that has been eroded due to Mordialloc Pier, which restricts the natural sand migration to the beach. Currently, the dunes are being eroded from wave action. As a temporary solution, North Aspendale Beach is periodically nourished with fine grained sand from dredging works in the entrance of Mordialloc Creek and in 2005, the Victorian Government and Kingston City Council funded an erosion protection trial consisting of a 50•metre geotextile wall made out of geo•bags as shown in Figure 10. For a shorter term solution of about 5 to 10 years, it is recommended that North Aspendale Beach be nourished using about 50,000 m3 of coarse sand. The coarse sand will most likely have to be sourced from land because it is anticipated that offshore coarse sand supplies are inadequate. The estimate cost for nourishment is in

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 44 Volume 1 • Main Report the order of $800,000 including 25 % contingency but not including detail design or construction management.

Figure 10 Sand Bag Erosion Protection Figure 11 North Aspendale Beach

9.6 Half Moon Bay See Vantree Pty Ltd in associated with Coastal Engineering Solutions – Beaches at Risk, Final Report, December 2001 Half Moon Bay Beach (Figure 12 and Figure 13) is a short (about 400 m) North facing beach that is an important recreation precinct for the Bayside community. It is recommended that the existing beach be widened with approximately 15,000 m3 of sand to support the demands of the beach users. Two short groynes may be required at both the north and south end of the beach to anchor the nourishment. The estimated cost for the nourishment and two short groynes is in the order of $400,000 including 25 % contingency. This estimated cost does not include detail design and construction management.

Figure 12 South End of Half Moon Bay Figure 13 Half Moon Bay Beach

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 45 Volume 1 • Main Report 9.7 Eastern Beach Geelong See Coastal Engineering Solutions – Beach Nourishment Preliminary Designs, January 2003 Eastern Beach shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 is a short protected north facing beach in Geelong that was developed to increase tourism and provide a swimming and recreation facility for the surrounding communities. To provide a long term coastal management solution for Eastern Beach, the existing groynes will have to be extended by about 20 metres and the beach nourished with about 17,500 m3 of coarse sand. The estimated cost for the works is in the order of $495,000, which has been increased from values reported in 2003 by Costal Engineering Solutions to account for inflation and includes 25% contingency. The cost does not include detail design and construction management.

Figure 14 Eastern Beach Figure 15 Eastern Beach

9.8 Scope of Work The scope of work recommended and the associated estimated cost for the seven top priority beaches are shown in Table 8:

Table 8 Scope of Work

Beach Nourishment Other Infrastructure Estimated Quantity Cost Altona 45,000 m3 Construct Groynes $2,075,000 Elwood 40,000 m3 Extend Groyne $1,175,000 Mt Martha North 5,000 m3 Construct Groyne $175,000 Portarlington 50,000 m3 None $1,040,000 North Aspendale 50,000 m3 None $800,000 Half Moon Bay 15,000 m3 Construct Groynes $400,000 Eastern Beach Geelong 17,500 3m Extend Existing Groynes $495,000

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 46 Volume 1 • Main Report Note: The estimated cost includes 25% contingency but does not include detail design and construction management.

9.9 Asset Register An asset register has been compiled for each of the above six beaches. The asset registers provide basic information on the beach and can be electronically updated when an inspection is carried out. These registers can become part of a larger database, such as the DSE Foreshore Protection Assets Management System (FPAMS) or the Government Infrastructure Management System (GIMS). The outputs from the asset register for each of the six highest priority beaches can be found in Appendix E.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 47 Volume 1 • Main Report 10. Conclusions

The results of the criteria assessment can be summarised by ranking the beaches in order of priority. Table 9 illustrates the final priority ranking list. The higher the ranking, the more likely the beach is to be considered for further investigation, detailed design and nourishment works.

Table 9 Beach Rankings

Beach Ranking

Altona 1 Elwood 2 Mt Martha North 3 Portarlington 4 Half Moon Bay 5 North Aspendale 5 Eastern Beach Geelong 5 Portsea 5 Brighton New St 9 McCrae Beach 10 St Helens 10 Werribee South 10 Blairgowrie 13 Point Lonsdale 13 St Leonards 13 Western Beach Geelong 13 Rippleside 13 Shelleys Beach 18 Moorpanyal 18 Fishermans Beach 20 Queenscliff 21 Marina Cove 22 Parkdale 23 Sorrento 23 Mt Martha South 25 Rye 25 Altona Coastal Park 25 Williamstown 25 West Rosebud 29 Rosebud 30

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 48 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 49 Volume 1 • Main Report 11. Recommendations

11.1 Implementation Following the priority ranking of the beaches shown in Table 9 the $8 million funding allocation over four years for the establishment of the Enhancing Our Beaches Program should be carefully divided between the highest priority beaches. The prioritising task has identified the highest priority projects and it is envisaged that a number of the highest priority beaches can be fully renourished using the funding allocation. Potentially up to four major projects with an expected design life of 25 to 30 years, and up to four minor projects with an expected design life of 5 to 10 years could be undertaken. Once these beaches have been selected and budget allocation determined, these preferred candidates will be the subject of detailed design followed by implementation.

11.2 Sand Sourcing As discussed in Section 9, generally sand grain size should preferably be the same size or coarser than the native beach sand grain size. If finer sand is used, groyne structures or other means of anchoring the sand are usually needed and a larger volume of sand is desirable to allow for erosion losses over time. Due to the likely grain sizes that are to be recovered from the Port of Melbourne Corporation’s Channel Deepening Project, it does not seem to be a viable nourishment source. However this option should not be disregarded and considered if proximity allows (e.g. Mt Martha close to dredge spoil ground). For a number of the high priority beaches located at the northern end of the Bay, sand needs to be supplied from an on•shore source due to the lack of reliable off•shore borrow areas in the vicinity. On•shore sources need to be investigated so that a supply of an adequate grain size can be sourced within reasonable proximity to contain nourishment costs. All sand sources also need to be tested to establish any contamination that would prevent the sand from being used for nourishment.

11.3 Stabilisation Works In instances where sand used for nourishment, particularly if an excess of finer than local sand is used, and the coastal processes are such that this sand will continually move to other areas along the coastline or offshore, stabilisation works should be considered as a step to lessen the impact of these loses. This applies more to those beaches that are exposed to a more rapid sand transfer system or that are generally less protected. The most common method of improving sand stability on a beach with inherent sand movement is the construction of groynes. This method increases the overall cost of nourishment significantly; however, it is a proven method to increase the design life of the beach nourishment.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 50 Volume 1 • Main Report It is therefore recommended that the projects selected for major works, where the design life is likely to be up to 25 years, contain some means of sand stabilisation works. This is likely to be the use of groynes to prevent sand movement and encourage the formation of new beaches, however this may also be represented in cliff or rock wall stabilisation works.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 51 Volume 1 • Main Report Appendix A References

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 52 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 53 Volume 1 • Main Report References

Vantree et al (2001) Beaches at Risk, prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) Coastal Engineering Solutions (2003) Preliminary Design for Priority Beach Nourishment Projects, Port Phillip Bay, prepared for DNRE PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2003) Port Phillip Bay Beach Renourishment Economic Analysis, prepared for DNRE Reckon (2001) Social and Economic Criteria for the Assessment of Beach Renourishment Projects, prepared for the Association of Bayside Municipalities Toogood, Z., Riedel, P., and Byrne, G., Re•use of Dredge Spoil for Beach Nourishment Projects, Victoria, Australia, Coasts and Ports Australasia Conference 2003, Auckland Parsons Brinckerhoff (2004) Channel Deepening Project – Environmental Effects Statement (Vols 1 to 4), for Port of Melbourne Corporation Port of Melbourne Corporation (2007) Channel Deepening Project – Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement (Main Report Vols 1 to 3 and Technical Appendices Vols 1 to 10) Vantree Pty Ltd (2002) Sandringham Beach – Royal Avenue Foreshore Protection, prepared for DNRE Coastal Engineering Solutions (2007) Mount Martha North Beach Coastal Erosion & Remediation, prepared for The Mount Martha North Beach Group Committee

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay 54 Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Appendix B Project Brief

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Department of Sustainability and Environment

Request for Quotation:

Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay

1. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) is seeking quotes from suitably qualified consultants to undertake a review of beach nourishment priorities for Port Phillip Bay.

This brief outlines the consulting services required. It also outlines the proposed contractual and administrative arrangements and provides important information to assist in the preparation and lodgement of a submission.

2. BACKGROUND

There were 25 beaches nourished around Port Phillip Bay during the 1970s and 1980s to protect natural and built coastal assets and other infrastructure from damage caused by coastal erosion. Since that time, these and other Port Phillip Bay beaches have become highly valued recreational assets for the Victorian community.

DSE is responsible for the periodic maintenance of nourished and high risk beaches around Port Phillip Bay. In 2001 the Department commissioned the Beaches at Risk study1 to assess the condition of the 25 nourished beaches. The study found that most of the beaches would require some form of reconstruction and/or maintenance within 5 to 10 years from the time of the study (ie 2006 to 2011).

After the release of the Beaches at Risk report, a priority list of beach nourishment projects within Port Phillip Bay was agreed upon with key stakeholders and endorsed by the then Minister for Environment. Some minor nourishment works have already been undertaken and delivery has commenced for major beach nourishment projects at Middle Park and Sandringham. Preliminary designs have also been prepared for Elwood, Brighton, Mentone, Altona, Eastern Beach, Moorpanyal, St Helens and Rippleside2.

In November 2006, the Victorian Government announced an allocation of $8 million over four years for the establishment of the Enhancing Our Beaches Program, which will deliver more nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay.

3. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this consultancy is to provide a sound technical and social basis for prioritising the allocation of Enhancing Our Beaches program funding for beach nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay, by: · updating the findings of the Beaches at Risk study · reviewing and updating the list of priorities for beach nourishment projects around Port Phillip Bay.

1 Vantree et al (2001) Beaches at Risk 2 Coastal Engineering Solutions (2003) Beach Nourishment Preliminary Designs

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Department of Sustainability and Environment

4. SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED

The consultant will be required to undertake the following tasks: · Review available reports and information as required (refer to Section 5 – Available Reports and Information) · Review the criteria for inclusion of beaches in the program · Undertake a visual inspection and assess each included beach around Port Phillip Bay · Develop, in consultation with DSE, a set of criteria to assess the strategic importance and urgency of the highest priority beaches · Facilitate a workshop with the Association of Bayside Municipalities (ABM) to assess social aspects of the highest priority beaches · Apply the above criteria (refer to Attachment A) to prioritise the beach nourishment projects · Determine sand quality and quantity for beaches on the highest priority list and determine any proposed infrastructure requirements to retain sand · Prepare an asset register to capture the highest priority beach nourishment projects detailing sand type, quality and quantity, expected beach life, and indicative cost to remedy beach to a beach life of (i) 5•10 years and (ii) 25•30 years · Prepare a brief report outlining the approach, analysis and the key findings · Present the report at a meeting of various DSE representatives and other key stakeholders.

5. AVAILABLE REPORTS AND INFORMATION

DSE will make available to the consultant the following reports: · Vantree et al (2001) Beaches at Risk, a report prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) · Coastal Engineering Solutions (2003) Preliminary Design for Priority Beach Nourishment Projects, Port Phillip Bay, a report prepared for DNRE · PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2003) Port Phillip Bay Beach Renourishment Economic Analysis, a report prepared for DNRE · Reckon (2001) Social and Economic Criteria for the Assessment of Beach Renourishment Projects, a report prepared for the Association of Bayside Municipalities

6. DELIVERABLES

The Consultant will be expected to provide the following deliverables: · draft criteria to incorporate, assess and prioritise beaches for nourishment in Port Phillip Bay · final criteria reflecting DSE and stakeholder feedback · a draft written report that outlines the work undertaken and the key findings of that work (one electronic copy)

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Department of Sustainability and Environment

· a final written report that addresses DSE feedback on the draft report (3 hard copies and one electronic copy) · A PowerPoint presentation on the above report, to be presented at a meeting to be held at DSE’s Head Office in East Melbourne.

7. TIMELINES

The key dates for this consultancy are listed below: · Request for Quote issued • 31 August 2007 · Submissions due • 19 September 2007 · Successful consultant advised • mid October 2007 · Draft report due – 14 December 2007 · Final report due • 1 week after receipt of DSE feedback

The consultant will be required to deliver work in accordance with these timelines

8. CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT

The contract will be based on the DSE Agreement for Professional Services or Consultancy (Single Purchase). A copy of the draft contract is provided as Attachment B.

Consultants are required to outline any departures from the conditions of contract in their submission.

9. CONTRACT MANAGER

DSE’s nominated Contract Manager will be the key contact for the consultant.

The name and contact details for the DSE Contract Manager are provided below:

Name: Lynn Kisler Manager Public Assets Department of Sustainability and Environment Telephone: 03 9637 9886 E•mail: [email protected] Address: 8 Nicholson Street East Melbourne VIC 3002

10. REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

The consultant will be required to provide the nominated Contract Manager with brief fortnightly reports on progress, as requested.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Department of Sustainability and Environment

Project meetings will be held between the consultant and the DSE Contract Manager at inception of the project and on submission of draft deliverables. These meetings will be convened at DSE’s Melbourne Office at 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Department of Sustainability and Environment

ATTACHMENT A

PRIORITISATION OF NOURISHMENT PROJECTS

The Department requires that the prioritisation of nourishment projects takes account of asset management attributes for each beach. The attributes considered should include: strategic importance, functionality, utilisation, condition and urgency of required works.

In assessing strategic importance the consultant should give consideration to:

· Contribution to asset (natural and built) protection · Value to the public as a recreational asset · Historic and/ or cultural value

In assessing functionality the consultant should give consideration to:

· Fitness for purpose · Impact of stormwater outfalls · Beach and public safety (water quality and safety) · Public amenity (access, parking, facilities – change rooms, toilets)

In assessing utilisation the consultant should give consideration to:

· Level of visitation by the local community and visitors · Availability and proximity of alternative beaches

In assessing urgency the consultant should give consideration to:

· Public and visitor safety · Risks to coastal assets and infrastructure · Service life remaining · Consequence of delaying nourishment works

The projected impact of climate change will need to be factored into the assessment of both the strategic importance and urgency of beach nourishment projects. Climate change poses a risk to coastal assets and infrastructure along the Victorian coast. In the short to medium term the greatest threat comes from the projected increase in the frequency and intensity of storm surge events, and erosion on the coast caused by changes to weather patterns. In the longer term, the threat from rising sea levels is expected to increase in significance.

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Appendix C Example Site Inspection Report Sheet

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak summer months

Checklist 15/04/2008 12:10 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 2 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Checklist 15/04/2008 12:10 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 2 Appendix D Site Inspection Reports

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Elwood Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 50m at the end of the beach (south of Head St drain) is 4 been eroded x 5 eroded. 1150m/1200m 5% eroded

Average existing width approx 15m. 15m/25m 40% b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been eroded. Middle section is in good and usable condition. 4 eroded x 5 However beach is shortening and thinning to southern end. c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Very little change from 2001 images 4 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal public risk. Potential for seawall at southern end 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing to damaged over time b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Head St drain pipe no longer exposed (as was in 2001). roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can 4 Seawall exposed south of drain be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Seawall protection along the length 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 5 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely minimal impact. Sand previously trucked south from St Kilda build up. impact on the environment Potential to source offshore. Approx grain size 0.5 - 0.7 mm b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not minimal impact adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site improved area d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment improved area

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular and successful beach summer months

Elwood 15/04/2008 12:12 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) Good parking and general access. Poor access via public transport. a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Numerous clubs, 2 kiosks, 1 restaurant, 3 car parks, multiple water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained accesses. Bike/walk path b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority 2 x Groynes (1 x Rock, 1 x Concrete) assist beach sand stabilisation (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Elwood 15/04/2008 12:12 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Brighton - New St Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 50 m at the end of the beach (south of Head St drain) is 3 been eroded x 5 eroded. 850m/900m 5% eroded

Average existing width approx 15m - 20m. 20 - 40% b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been eroded. Northern end is good condition but depletion 3 eroded x 5 towards the south. c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Little change from 2001 images. Beach is continually 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 depleting Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Small public risk. Potential for seawall at southern end 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing to damaged over time b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Southern seawall no longer exposed (as was in 2001). roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can However beach is heavily eroded and likely to be 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing exposed with swell c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Seawall protection along the length 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely minimal impact. Sand originally trucked from north to south. Grain impact on the environment Size approx 0.5 mm b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not minimal impact adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site improved area d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment improved area

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach summer months

Brighton 15/04/2008 12:12 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) Little immediate infrastructure. 1 toilet block. Close to other beaches a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking and infrastructure. Good access, ok parking and good public transport water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained access b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Brighton 15/04/2008 12:12 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Half Moon Bay Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Length of 500m with the entire length thinned and 50m 3 been eroded x 5 severely thin b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Existing width approximately 10m. Add 15m width and 4 eroded x 5 1.5m depth c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs exposed at northern end pose risk 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some facilities are at risk with further erosion 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Foreshore at some risk 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment Some significance give the proximity of the wreck off shore

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Highly utilised beach summer months

Half Moon Bay 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Significant infrastructure, including Clubs and boat ramps water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Half Moon Bay 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Parkdale Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Very lengthy beach, up to 2000m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 20m 2 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion No change 1 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal risk 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some pipes exposed on the beach 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal risk 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Good candidate for nourishment. Significant improvement can be impact on the environment made b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach summer months

Parkdale 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good amenities for users water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Parkdale 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: North Aspendale Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy, however focus on northern end. Narrowed 4 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been 5 - 10m average width at northern end 4 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion No noticeable change since last inspection 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Potential damage to rock and sandbag walls 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Sandbags in place to prevent further foreshore erosion 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Good candidate for nourishment. Significant improvement can be impact on the environment made b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach, width must be retained summer months

North Aspendale 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Some facilities but mostly backs onto private property water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

North Aspendale 15/04/2008 12:13 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Fishermans Beach Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 750m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been 15m average width 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Some exposure at northern end 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some rock wall and pipe exposure at southern end 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Potential risk 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not potential adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Extensively utilised beach summer months

Fishermans Beach 15/04/2008 12:14 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good facilities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Fishermans Beach 15/04/2008 12:14 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Marina Cove Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Small, less than 100m 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Thin, average width of 5 - 10m 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Well protected, minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and High risk of cliff erosion 5 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Some facilities such as the stair case are being exposed roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can 3 and weathered be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal risk as surrounded by cliffs 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 2 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Better suited to cliff stabilisation project. Nourishment may not be a impact on the environment significant benefit b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Difficult to access and minimal space mean it is not highly popular summer months

Marina Cove 15/04/2008 12:14 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Very limited amenities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Marina Cove 15/04/2008 12:14 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Mt Martha Beach North/Craigie Beach Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 900m 4 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 10m. Narrow significantly towards 5 eroded x 5 northern end. c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Significant sand movement from north to south 4 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs at the northern end are beginning to be exposed 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Bathing boxes are being undermined, creating roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can 5 significant risk be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this More sand would significantly reduce 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Nourishment will improve the overall state of the beach. Medium sand impact on the environment grain size. b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular, particularly with those owners of beach boxes. summer months

Mt Martha North 15/04/2008 12:15 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Level of amenities is good, with associated Clubs etc. Car parking is water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained limited. b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Mt Martha North 15/04/2008 12:15 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Mt Martha Beach South (South of Beach Name: Balcombe Creek) Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 800m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Width increasing from north to south, 25m average 2 eroded x 5 width c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change, potential increase in sand build up 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Some risk to cliffs at southern end 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Some risk to facilities such as bathing boxes at northern roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can 3 end be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 2 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Adequate sand supply makes this an undesirable option impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular and well utilised beach summer months

Mt Martha South 15/04/2008 12:15 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Very good amenities, including Clubs water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Mt Martha South 15/04/2008 12:15 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: McCrae Beach Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy, up to 1000m, narrowed significantly at eastern 4 been eroded x 5 end b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Area around Anthonys Nose fully eroded, average width 4 eroded x 5 = 10 - 15m c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Change can be seen from last inspection 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal as protected by seawalls 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Seawalls, steps and other facilities are exposed 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Some risk of foreshore erosion 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Good candidate for nourishment, fulfils all categories impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Popular beach, used extensively throughout summer and holiday summer months periods

McCrae Beach 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good facilities for beach users. Some limited car parking water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

McCrae Beach 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Rosebud Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy beach, with no risk of shortening 1 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 20m 2 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and No risk 1 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can No risk 1 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal risk of the erosion, adequate width to ignore 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 1 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Nourishment would provide no environmental advantage impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Highly used over summer, selectively used at other times summer months

Rosebud 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Amenities are adequate but not ample water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Rosebud 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: West Rosebud Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy beach, with no risk of shortening 1 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Some areas narrowed in parts, width 15 - 20m 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and No risk 1 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can No risk 1 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Potential risk of the erosion, however adequate width to 3 can be reduced by renourishment ignore Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Nourishment would assist in protecting environmental state, but is not impact on the environment necessary b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Highly used beach summer months

West Rosebud 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Amenities are adequate for beach use water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

West Rosebud 15/04/2008 12:16 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Rye Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Long beach, greater than 1000m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Significant width, 20m average 2 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal risk 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some exposure for public facilities 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal risk 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not Medium adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular in summer and holiday periods summer months

Rye 15/04/2008 12:17 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Significant amenities to service the foreshore area water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Rye 15/04/2008 12:17 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Blairgowrie Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy, 1000m, with areas narrowed 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 10m, including some significantly 4 eroded x 5 narrowed areas c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Well protected, no change in rate 1 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal public risk 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some facilities are being exposed and damaged 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Potential for erosion 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. A good candidate for nourishment impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Popular with locals and boat users summer months

Blairgowrie 15/04/2008 12:17 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 6 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Adequate infrastructure to service the beach water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Blairgowrie 15/04/2008 12:17 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 6 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Sorrento Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Lengthy, greater than 1000m 1 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 15 - 20m, with varying widths along the 3 eroded x 5 length c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some risk to foreshore facilities 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Potential for exposure 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Good candidate for nourishment to assist the environment impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Extremely popular over the summer period summer months

Sorrento 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good amenities to service the beach goers water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Sorrento 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Shelleys Beach Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Up to 750m, narrowed significantly in areas 4 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Beach width significantly reduced, less than 5m average 5 eroded x 5 width c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Continued sand movement 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs are being exposed and pose risk 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Bathing boxes are being severely undermined 5 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Risk of foreshore erosion in places 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 1 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Difficult to access and benefiting only selected users, not a candidate. impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Only accessible and utilised by those few owners of cliff top real estate summer months

Shelleys Beach 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking N/A depends on beach box set up water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Shelleys Beach 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Portsea Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 750m 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 10m 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Similar condition to last inspection 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs are generally protected 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Significant. Bathing boxes and retaining walls exposed. 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 2 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Fine-Medium grain size. impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach, used extensively throughout summer months summer months

Portsea 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good access to amenities. water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Portsea 15/04/2008 12:18 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Point Lonsdale Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Long beach, greater than 1000m 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Narrowing in areas, 10 - 15m 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Well protected by see walls, minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Potential for undermining 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Seawalls and groynes exposed 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Well protected by see walls 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Multiple groynes provide added protection. impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Popular beach amongst locals and surrounding areas summer months

Point Lonsdale 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good and improving facilities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Point Lonsdale 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Queenscliff Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Up to 1000m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Very wide, greater than 25m average width 1 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Very little sand depletion. Minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and No public risk 1 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Minimal risk 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal, given the substantial width 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not Minimal adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach, however size is sufficient for popularity summer months

Queenscliff 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good access to facilities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Queenscliff 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: St Leonards Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Long beach, 1000m plus, with narrow areas 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Varies significantly, 10 - 15m average width 4 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal change 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal risk 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Some risk to exposed infrastructure 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Foreshore erosion is potential risk in areas 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 4 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Likely to be a good candidate for nourishment impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Popular beach for users in surrounding areas summer months

St Leonards 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good range of facilities to service the beach goers needs water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

St Leonards 15/04/2008 12:19 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Port Arlington Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 1000m 5 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 10m 4 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion 4 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs being severely undermined and seawall being 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing exposed b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, Retaining seawall extensively exposed. Pipe also roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can 4 exposed to elements be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Erosion is significant 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Course sand grain size. impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Very popular beach, for use by local and surrounding areas. summer months

Portarlington 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Beach well serviced by amenities and car parking, as well as water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained associated shops. b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Portarlington 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Eastern Beach Geelong Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 500m 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 10 - 15m 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal, given protection 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Footpath and rock groynes could be at risk 3 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Potential for erosion 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 5 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Prime candidate for improvement by renourishment impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Extremely popular and services a vast area summer months

Eastern 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Excellent amenities and facilities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Eastern 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Western Beach Geelong Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has N/A Cliff face or rock wall rather than a typical beach 1 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been N/A 1 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion N/A 1 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliff are being significantly undermined and threatening 5 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing public safety b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Boardwalk below is at risk of significant damage 5 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Significant risk 5 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 2 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Difficult to renourish. Better candidate for cliff stabilisation projects impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak summer months

Western 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Western 15/04/2008 12:20 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Rippleside Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Small beach, 200m 4 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Very depleted in places, average width = 5m 5 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Fairly well protected, minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Some risk due to exposure 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Infrastructure being exposed to elements 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Moderate risk 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Works likely to improve the current environmental situation impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Utilised by locals, however too small to be extensively utilised summer months

Rippleside 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Facilities are adequate for the number of possible users water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Rippleside 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: St Helens Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Very small, 100m. Significant length of beach has been 5 been eroded x 5 washed away. b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Significant width loss, 5m or less average width 4 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Fairly well protected, minimal change 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Footpath and hillside being undermined, contributing to 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing significant risk b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Pipe exposed 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Moderate risk 3 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal. Beach is currently dirty and unsafe. impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Utilised by locals, however too small to be extensively utilised summer months

St Helens 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Facilities are adequate for the number of possible users water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

St Helens 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Moorpanyal Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Very small, 100m 4 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Minimal width, 5m or less 3 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Cliffs and rock faces are exposed 4 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can No facilities to concern 1 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Foreshore land is being eroded 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely The beach is so insignificant that nourishment would make very little impact on the environment impact b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Not popular or significant summer months

Moorpanyal 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Lacking amenities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Moorpanyal 15/04/2008 12:21 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Werribee South Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Long beach, 1000m plus 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Beach thinned significantly in parts. Average width = 4 eroded x 5 10m c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Steady and continuous sand movement 3 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Boat ramps, jetty, seawall and marina facility is exposed 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Minimal beach protection, rich of foreshore erosion 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not Slightly increased patronage adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Reasonably popular for locals summer months

Werribee 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Good facilities and amenities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Werribee 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Altona Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has Long beach 1800m 5 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width between 10 and 15m 5 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Beach is significantly depleted in numerous areas 5 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Minimal risk to public safety 3 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Coastal infrastructure is being exposed in parts 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Seawall generally protects the foreshore along the 3 can be reduced by renourishment length of the beach Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 5 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Beach nourishment will significantly improve the coastal area. Course impact on the environment sand grain size. b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Major beach that services people from a wide area. summer months

Altona 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Beach is well equipped with amenities and other related facilities. 1 x water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained small rock groyne is in place. b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Altona 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Altona Coastal Park Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 1000m plus 3 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Not typical beach. Width is significant 2 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Minimal due to rock protection 2 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Very minimal, given its very limited use and access 1 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Minimal. Rock protection is exposed 2 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Foreshore land, which makes up the beach, is exposed 4 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 2 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Insignificant, very limited public use and access. summer months

Altona CP 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking Minimal facilities water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Economic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Altona CP 15/04/2008 12:22 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000

Beach Nourishment Review - Port Phillip Bay - Site Visit Checklist Beach Name: Williamstown Criteria Notes and Comments Score Technical Criteria Beach Condition a) Beach Length rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach length that has 500m 2 been eroded x 5 b) Beach width rating score (1 - 5) = % of beach width that has been Average width = 15m 2 eroded x 5 c) Rate of Erosion score (1 - 5) = estimated % loss due to erosion Well protected beach 1 since 2001 Beaches at Risk report x 5 Risk To Assets a) Public Risk (1 - 5): unstable cliffs pose a danger to the public, and Very minimal public risk 2 this danger can be significantly reduced by renourishing b) Public Facilities (1 - 5): public facilities (retaining walls, paths, roadways, parks, buildings, drains) at risk of damage, and this risk can Pipe and seawalls are being exposed 4 be significantly reduced by renourishing c) Foreshore Land (1 - 5): foreshore land at risk of erosion and this Foreshore is well protected, hence minimal risk 2 can be reduced by renourishment Protecting Environmental Values Protecting Environmental Values (1 - 5) 3 a) nourishment of the beach and associated works will not adversely Minimal impact on the environment b) increased patronage as a consequence of nourishment will not adversely impact on the environment c) nourishment would enhance the environmental value of the site d) nourishment addresses or partially addresses the probable impact from climate change e) historic or cultural value will be enhanced by nourishment

Social Criteria Social Value Social Value (1 - 5) a) this beach is the main beach for sub-regional and regional beach goers b) the area provides access and a hub for many ethnic and cultural groups c) the beach has played a significant role in the ongoing life of the local community for many years Community Use Community Use (1 - 5) a) the condition of the beach is leading to overcrowding in peak Popular beach summer months

Williamstown 15/04/2008 12:23 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 1 of 3 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 b) the beach is attracting increasing numbers of beachgoers and visitors each year c) access to the beach is compromised by the poor condition of the site d) there are no alternative beaches or beaches within close proximity available if nourishment is delayed Supporting Infrastructure Supporting Infrastructure (1 - 5) a) beach-related amenities (eg toilets, change rooms, shade, drinking water, signage) are sufficient and well maintained b) parking facilities, roads and road management are adequate to support beach usage in the peak summer months c) the beach area is supported by complementary social and recreational facilities d) the beach is important as it links with other recreational systems (parks, paths, trails) e) good public transport is available to the beach areas

Community Management Community Management (1 - 5) a) the foreshore is well managed and maintained by the local authority (Council/Committee of Management) b) Council and local businesses, community and sporting groups are active in supporting the foreshore area and the renourishment Economic Criteria Contribution to Local Economy Contribution to Local Economy (1 - 5) a) the presence of the beach is seen as a direct and significant contributor to the local economy b) many businesses rely on summer related beach activity to survive c) income from foreshore parking fees and other foreshore facilities contributes to Council's revenue Scope for Iconic Development Scope for Economic Development (1 - 5) a) the beach environments are seen as likely to attract ongoing residential property development b) activities directly relating to popularity of the foreshore area are viewed as opportunities for ongoing business and commercial developments c) potential exists for creation or expansion of tourism services

d) specific impacts of beach renourishment and renewal projects e) extent to which economic development proposals intersect with, and actively promote, social objectives and criteria

Williamstown 15/04/2008 12:23 PM G:\31\21982\Tech\Site visit checklist.xls Page 2 of 3 Appendix E Complete Criterion Matrix

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Beach Nourishment Site Inspection Criteria Matrix

Technical/ Functional Social Economic

Beach Ranking Value Economic since 2001 Supporting Public Risk Community TOTAL SCORE TOTAL contribution Social Value Beach width Beach Management Beach length Beach Infrastructure Environmental Environmental Rate of erosion Local Economy Foreshore Land Community Use Public Facilities Development Scope Elwood Port Phillip 4 4 4343527 54552324 51 2 Brighton New St Bayside 3 3 3243321 33453321 42 9 Half Moon Bay Bayside 3 4 2433322 33453321 43 5 Parkdale Kingston 2 2 1242417 000000017 23 North Aspendale Kingston 4 4 3334425 33352218 43 5 Fishermans Beach Mornington Peninsula 232333319 23342216 35 20 Marina Cove Mornington Peninsula 332532220 211111727 22 Mt Martha North Mornington Peninsula 454454329 32243317 46 3 Mt Martha South Mornington Peninsula 222332216 000000016 25 McCrae Beach Mornington Peninsula 443233423 32343318 41 10 Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 122112110 000000010 30 West Rosebud Mornington Peninsula 132113314 000000014 29 Rye Mornington Peninsula 222232316 000000016 25 Blairgowrie Mornington Peninsula 341342421 33343319 40 13 Sorrento Mornington Peninsula 132233317 000000017 23 Shelleys Beach Mornington Peninsula 453453125 22131211 36 18 Portsea Mornington Peninsula 333343221 44443322 43 5 Point Lonsdale Borough of Queenscliffe 332332319 33444321 40 13 Queenscliff Borough of Queenscliffe 212132314 33443320 34 21 St Leonards Greater Geelong 343233422 33343218 40 13 Portarlington Greater Geelong 544444328 33333217 45 4 Eastern Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 333233522 43443321 43 5 Western Beach Geelong Greater Geelong 111555220 33443320 40 13 Rippleside Greater Geelong 452343324 23243216 40 13 St Helens Greater Geelong 542443325 23243216 41 10 Moorpanyal Greater Geelong 432414321 23242215 36 18 Werribee South Wyndham 343244323 24432318 41 10 Altona Hobsons Bay 555343530 54553224 54 1 Altona Coastal Park Hobsons Bay 322124216 000000016 25 Williamstown Hobsons Bay 221242316 000000016 25

Each criterion scored 0 to 5, 5 = complete agreement with criterion 4 = mostly agrees with criterion 3 = partially agrees with criterion 2 = in some way agrees with criterion 1 = no agreement or disagreement with criterion. 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Appendix F Asset Register Output

For Highest Priority Beaches

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report 31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 • Main Report Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Altona Beach Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 21/02/2008 Comments: None

Location Beach: Altona Beach Suburb: Altona Municipality: Hobsons Bay Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Maidstone Street Bayview Street

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M54 J12 - M209 D1

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 1800 m Sand Quality: Coarse Average Width: 10 - 15 m

Groynes Number: 1 Rock Length: 38.2 m

22/02/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Elwood Beach Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 30/10/2007 Comments: None

Location Beach: Elwood Beach Suburb: Elwood Municipality: Port Phillip Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Point Ormond Head St Drain

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M67 B4

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 1200m Sand Quality: Medium Average Width: 15m

Groynes Number: 2 (1xRock, 1xConcrete) Length: 50m, 61m

14/02/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Mt Martha North Beach Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 21/02/2008 Comments: None

Location Beach: Mt Martha North Beach Suburb: Mt Martha Municipality: Mornington Peninsula Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Balcombe Creek Augusta Street

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M144 K10

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 900 m Sand Quality: Medium Average Width: 10 m

Groynes Number: None Length: N/A

22/02/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Portarlington Beach Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 21/02/2008 Comments: None

Location Beach: Portarlington Beach Suburb: Portarlington Municipality: Greater Geelong Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Portarlington Pier Fairfax St

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M444 E5 - H5

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 1000 m Sand Quality: Coarse Average Width: 10 m

Groynes Number: None Length: N/A

22/02/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

North Aspendale Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 30/10/2007 Comments: None

Location Beach: North Aspendale Suburb: Municipality: Port Phillip Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Mordialloc Pier Bona Vista Ave

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference:

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 2800 m Sand Quality: Medium Average Width: 15 m

Groynes Number: None Length: NA

15/04/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Half Moon Bay Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 30/10/2007 Comments: None

Location Beach: Half Moon Bay Suburb: Bay Side Municipality: Port Phillip Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Black Rock Yacht Club Love Street

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M85 H1

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 330 m Sand Quality: Medium Average Width: 15 m

Groynes Number: None Length: N/A

15/04/2008 1 Foreshore Asset Management System Individual Asset Report

Eastern Beach Geelong Asset Number:

Asset Type: Beach Asset Data Last Collected: 30/10/2007 Comments: None

Location Beach: Eastern Beach Suburb: Geelong Municipality: Port Phillip Committee of Management: NA

Start of Asset End of Asset Nearest Intersection or Landmark: Bellerine Street Fitzroy St

Melways or VicRoads Map Reference: M452 D3

Attributes Dimensions Other Attributes Length: 400 m Sand Quality: Medium - Fine Average Width: 20 m

Groynes Number: 2 (Rock) Length: 55 m, 30 m

15/04/2008 1

31/21982/146043 Review of Beach Nourishment Priorities for Port Phillip Bay Volume 1 - Main Report