Bluff Point Coastal Adaptation Planning FAQs
The following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been compiled to provide important background information on the project. Any new questions arising during the project will be added. Should you have any questions that are not answered below, please submit them by completing the Question/Feedback Form
QUESTIONS
What is the project about?
Who's involved in the project?
Why are coastal adaptation options being explored for Bluff Point?
What are coastal hazards?
What is the main coastal hazard at Bluff Point?
Why do we need to adapt to coastal erosion when the Bluff Point shoreline hasn't changed in years and doesn’t appear to be eroding?
Why isn’t the Bluff Point coastline that comprises sand, reef and rock viewed as a ‘mixed sandy and rocky coast’ that would erode slower than the CHRMAP coastal hazard lines indicate?
Who has been engaged with?
How have the stakeholders been engaged?
How has their input been used?
What is multi-criteria analysis?
What were the four prioritised stakeholder social sub criteria used in the MCA?
What were the six concept adaptation options?
Why is 'managed retreat' being considered?
Why aren’t the surfing opportunities artificial reefs create mentioned as a benefit in this adaptation option?
Who is assessing the adaptation options?
Which two coastal adaptation options scored the highest in the MCA?
What is a Cost Benefit Analysis?
What is a Benefit Distribution Analysis?
Will area residents be required to help fund the coastal adaptation in the form of rates?
How will we know when it’s time to take action to adapt to coastal erosion?
Has the Beresford Foreshore Project set a precedent?
Who paid for the Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection works?
Community Information Session Q&As
What research is currently being undertaken in coastal adaptation?
They are building huge artificial reefs in Dubai. Can something similar be done here?
Aren't water [sea] levels cyclical? The coastline goes through periods of erosion and accretion?
What hybrid protection strategies (e.g. nourishment + soft structures) are being modelled for Bluff Point, and what are their expected medium–long term effects?
How is the project addressing risks to adjacent coastlines due to changed sediment transport or wave dynamics?
What measures are in place to protect TECs and migratory species through adaptation works?
How much sand has been lost from Southgate Dunes?
How are assets prioritised for protection - are some considered more critical that others?
Why hasn't the City undertaken a coastal study for whole of the Geraldton?
What consideration has been given to the location of the seawall?
How are Traditional Owners involved in decision-making around coastal heritage and land use?
Will the City make shoreline hazard projections publicly available via mapping or GIS tools?
Are citizen science partnerships or community monitoring programs being considered as part of the implementation?
What are trigger points and what sort of trigger points would be used to implement a coastal adaptation project?
Can you provide some examples of trigger points used elsewhere in Geraldton?
What happens with new residential sub-divisions in coastal locations?
What is the impact of the PMaxP project on Bluff Point?
Are there opportunities to formally plan inland retreat corridors that enable habitat migration over time through strategic land-use planning?
Could trade-offs between “protect, accommodate, retreat” options be made clearer through interactive mapping, cost-benefit visuals, or 3D modelling to support broader public understanding?
While soft elements are present in some options, has the City considered reef modules or living shorelines as long-term protection strategies with ecological co-benefits?
How much sand is being lost along the coast from Bluff Point each year?
Since the Port has to put back sand why are they not putting back as much, or even more, than what is lost?
How long will the project take?
Who makes the final decision on which coastal adaptation measure will be implemented?
Who is funding the project?
Who do I contact about the project?
Questions
What is the project about?
This project is focusing on coastal adaptation planning for the Bluff Point locality. Its aim is to identify a long-term adaptation pathway to manage the impacts of coastal hazards at Bluff Point. The long-term adaptation pathway will allow timely decision making for planning and on-ground actions to manage the coastal hazard. (back)
Who's involved in the project?
City officers are leading the project together with coastal engineering specialist (M P Rogers), Community Engagement specialists (361 Degrees) and environment economic specialist (Aither). A Project Steering Committee comprising representatives from the City, Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH), Department of Transport (DOT), and two local community members has also been established to oversee the project. (back)
Why are coastal adaptation options being explored for Bluff Point?
The City completed its Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning (CHRMAP) report in 2018. Whilst this report provided a general managed retreat pathway for the Bluff Point locality, the report recommended that the City should investigate whether there is a preferred adaptation pathway from the following approaches: do nothing, managed retreat or protect. (back)
What are coastal hazards?
The coastline is a dynamic zone where the atmosphere, ocean and land interact. Waves, tides, ocean currents and wind all contribute energy to form and shape the coast over short, medium and long-term time scales. Coastal hazards are coastal processes that have the potential to impact social and environmental values and damage infrastructure assets. (back)
What is the main coastal hazard at Bluff Point?
The City’s CHRMAP report identified erosion as the main coastal hazard impacting Bluff Point. This report also identified a number of City, State and community assets that are at risk between now and 2030. This means important adaptation decisions are likely to be made at Bluff Point sooner rather than later. (back)
Why do we need to adapt to coastal erosion when the Bluff Point shoreline hasn't changed in years and doesn’t appear to be eroding?
The coastal erosion hazard lines were determined based on the methodology required by the WA State Planning Policy SPP2.6 which is generally conservative. This methodology mandatorily requires significant allowances, of up to 110 m for example, for sea level rise and uncertainty to be included. As a result these hazard lines project a significant distance inland. These lines are considered a representation of the potential erosion risk for planning purposes, not a prediction of erosion. In this regard, it is expected that the coastal adaptation would involve an adaptive management approach whereby the shoreline is monitored and management actions are implemented based on actual experienced changes rather than required allowances. (back)
Why isn’t the Bluff Point coastline that comprises sand, reef and rock viewed as a ‘mixed sandy and rocky coast’ that would erode slower than the CHRMAP coastal hazard lines indicate?
The State Planning Policy SPP2.6 requires 'mixed sandy and rocky coasts' to be treated as ‘sandy coasts’ when calculating the coastal hazard lines. The City completed geophysical investigations in 2019 to identified locations of rock on the Bluff Point coastline. The investigation found that rock was not extensive enough to be able to provide a reduction in the coastal hazard lines.(back)
Who has been engaged with?
The project team has been engaging with key stakeholders who have been identified as those who would be directly impacted by coastal erosion and include private and government agencies whose property and/or infrastructure is located on the ocean side of the 2110 coastal erosion hazard line. Local community and environmental groups, area schools and sporting groups who frequently use the foreshore were also identified as stakeholders and engaged with. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here
How have stakeholders been engaged?
Four activities have been undertaken:
- Webinar
- Coastal values survey
- Drop-in sessions
- Online feedback
The webinar took place in October 2024 and provided an overview of the coastal adaptation process and some initial considerations for shaping the design and development of coastal adaptation options for Bluff Point. It also gave stakeholders the opportunity to confirm if community and environmental values for the coast identified during the City’s CHRMAP process had changed or if more needed to be added.
A coastal assets survey was conducted in October/November 2024 to test and validate community values regarding the Bluff Point coast identified in previous consultations as well as capturing any additional values missing from the existing list.
In December 2024, six concept adaptation options developed by the coastal engineers were presented to project stakeholders at drop-in sessions. Feedback on the concepts was sought and input gathered on the social sub criteria to be utilised in the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) of these options. To ensure equity and enable those who couldn’t attend the sessions to provide their feedback all relevant information on the concept options was published on the project webpage and an online feedback form provided. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here (back)
How has their input been used?
The results of the coastal assets survey informed the development of nine social sub criteria that were prioritised by stakeholders during the drop-in sessions and in the online feedback form. The top four sub criteria were used in the MCA of the six concept adaptation options. Feedback gathered on the concept options will help inform the design of the adaptation responses. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here
What is multi-criteria analysis?
For this project the MCA involves assessing different coastal adaptation options against a wide range of factors including community, social, and environmental values, effectiveness, feasibility and cost. These factors are weighted by importance and each adaptation option is scored against these factors to identify the highest ranking options across all criteria. (back)
What were the four prioritised stakeholder social sub criteria used in the MCA?
- Protecting homes and infrastructure
- Protecting sand dunes/coastal vegetation
- Retaining foreshore areas for active recreation
- Ensuring easy access to the beach (back)
What were the six concept adaptation options?
The six options were:
- Option 1A – Seawall (protect)
- Option 1B – Seawall (retreat and protect)
- Option 2 – Groynes, headlands and seawall (protect)
- Option 3 – Managed retreat
- Option 4 – Artificial reefs
- Option 5 – Do nothing (reactive retreat) (back)
Why is ‘managed retreat’ being considered?
While managed retreat, an option that involves progressively removing assets and infrastructure that are subject to intolerable risk of damage from coastal hazards, is something the project is required to consider, it is not necessarily required to implement it. (back)
Why aren’t the surfing opportunities artificial reefs create mentioned as a benefit for this adaptation option?
Surfing and coastal protection are fundamentally different functions for submerged artificial reefs. For example artificial reefs for coastal protection aim to reduce incoming wave energy as much as possible (i.e. maximum wave breaking) to maximise coastal protection and tombolo/salient formation on the shoreline, whereas surfing reefs aim to induce a wave to break for surfability. Public safety is also relevant (i.e. the top of the artificial reefs for protection should sit as close to the water surface as possible - which may be a concern in regard to injuries). (back)
Who is assessing the adaptation options?
The Project Steering Committee utilised the MCA to score the six concept options. Environment economic specialist (Aither) will be undertaking a cost benefit analysis and a benefit distribution analysis of the two highest scoring coastal adaptation options. (back)
Which two coastal adaptation options scored the highest in the MCA?
- Option 1B – Seawall (retreat and protect)
- Option 2 – Groynes, headlands and seawall (protect) (back)
What is a Cost Benefit Analysis?
For this project, a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) process helps determine if the potential benefits of the two highest scoring adaptation options outweigh the associated costs. It does so by first determining all relevant costs (direct, indirect, tangible and ongoing) and the benefits (direct, indirect, tangible and ongoing). Monetary values are then assigned to both costs and benefits, even if they are not directly monetary (i.e. quality of life). The total costs are then compared with the total benefits and based on the comparison; a determination can be made on the worthiness of the adaptation option. (back)
What is a Benefit Distribution Analysis?
For this project, a Benefit Distribution Analysis (BDA) involves assessing how the benefits of the adaptation option is distributed among local community, businesses, City and state government entities, and other key stakeholders. It can also be used to financially model the costs of adaptation responses based on the beneficiary pays principle, meaning those that benefit from adaptation responses, in particular protection works, would help fund their construction and ongoing maintenance. This is a requirement of the DPLH to ensure that the long term adaptation pathway not only addresses the coastal hazards but also delivers value to the community as a whole. (back)
Will area residents be required to help fund the coastal adaptation in the form of rates?
The final decision on how the costs of the coastal adaptation responses will be distributed amongst the beneficiaries will ultimately be determined by Council. The results of this planning process will play a critical role in helping secure grant funding to undertake future Bluff Point coastal adaptation responses. Across Australia, some local governments have adopted the BDA financial modelling and others have not. (back)
How will we know when it’s time to take action to adapt to coastal erosion?
The adaptive coastal management approach includes coastal monitoring and trigger points which would identify when adaptation actions need to be made. These triggers will vary depending on the nature and intent of the selected adaptation option. For example, a trigger for when to retreat elements of a park may differ from a trigger for when to construct a seawall or offshore headland. Triggers take into account the adaptive capacity of assets to tolerate or withstand a hazard. For example, the impact to a foreshore dune from coastal erosion has a lower risk than the impact to a wastewater pump station due to the greater adaptive capacity of the fore dune. (back)
Has the Beresford Foreshore Project set a precedent?
Each coastal adaptation project is assessed on its individual merits, and the requirements of any grant funding opportunities. Support tools like the BDA and MCA are increasingly being used to guide the decision-making process. (back)
Who paid for the Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection works?
The $23.1 million Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection Works and Enhancement Project completed in 2018, was jointly funded by the State Government through the Royalties for Regions Grants Scheme, the Mid West Development Commission and the Mid West Ports Authority with the City contributing $1.8 million in funding towards amenities. The business case for the grant submission did not require a Benefit Distribution Analysis to be completed. Back
Community Information Session FAQs
What research is currently being undertaken in coastal adaptation?
Current coastal and estuarine adaptation research is focussing on nature based solutions. For Bluff Point, a nature-based approach could help manage the Threatened Ecological Community in the Chapman River Estuary. (back)
They are building huge artificial reefs in Dubai. Can something similar be done here?
Artificial reefs work well in low-energy coastal systems such as the Persian Gulf where water levels and wave heights do not vary much. In high-energy coastal systems typical to the midwest of Western Australia artificial reefs would be ineffectual during periods of storms and swells. (back)
Aren't water [sea] levels cyclical? The coastline goes through periods of erosion and accretion?
There are many cyclical factors that influence water levels from short terms (tides) to longer term (lunar cycles). However, the long term trend is for water levels to increase within these cycles due to human-related climate change. The Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH) require local governments to take into account these long term trends and use significant storm and inundation events when undertaking coastal planning projects like this. (back)
What hybrid protection strategies (e.g. nourishment + soft structures) are being modelled for Bluff Point, and what are their expected medium–long term effects?
The long-term coastal adaptation concept options being investigated in this planning project can be supplemented by sand nourishment and dune building. Mid West Ports Authority will continue to undertake sand bypassing to feed the northern beaches including Bluff Point. Dune building on its own will not be able to fully address potential coastal erosion identified in the City's CHRMAP (Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan). (back)
How is the project addressing risks to adjacent coastlines due to changed sediment transport or wave dynamics?
The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) undertaken on the six long-term coastal adaptation option concepts included a specific criterion to assess the impact that each option would have on the adjacent through changes to the sediment transport through the Bluff Point Coastal Management Unit. (back)
What measures are in place to protect TECs and migratory species through adaptation works?
The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) undertaken on the six long-term coastal adaptation option concepts included a specific criterion to assess the impact that each option would have on the Threatened Ecological Community. Similarly, there were criteria to assess the impact on the preservation of beach and dunes systems which are used by migratory shore birds. (back)
How much sand has been lost from Southgate Dunes?
Southgates Dunes is a mobile dune system comprising distinct northern and western dune areas. The dune system is migrating in a northerly direction.
Northern dune area: Limesand extraction is taking place from the northern dune area to prevent the dune system impacting nearby properties. Up to 110,000m3 is extracted per year.
Western dune area. Approximately 31,000 to 37,800 m3 sediment currently feeds into the ocean per year. It is estimated that the sediment feed to the littoral system will be exhausted in the next 50 years. (back)
How are assets prioritised for protection - are some considered more critical that others?
The City uses its CHRMAP coastal erosion and inundation hazard lines to identify where local government assets such as park, footpath and road infrastructure are likely to be at risk. This allows it to focus its coastal adaptation planning where the risk is most likely. (back)
Why hasn't the City undertaken a coastal study for whole of the Geraldton?
The City has undertaken a number of coastal studies for the Geraldton coastline. The City’s CHRMAP covers twelve coastal management units for the Geraldton coastline between Cape Burney and Drummond Cove. The Geraldton Coastal Strategy and Foreshore Management Plan covers the both the developed and undeveloped coastline between South Greenough and Drummond Cove. Both of these documents are available on the City's website. (back)
What consideration has been given to the location of the seawall?
Six long-term coastal adaptation option concepts have been presented for this coastal planning investigation to give the community an idea of what they would look like. Locations of protection infrastructures are therefore indicative, and if progressed would be subject to further investigations and studies to determine final locations. (back)
How are Traditional Owners involved in decision-making around coastal heritage and land use?
City officers have already met with Traditional Owners, Yamatji Southern Regional Corporation (YSRC) and the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH) to discuss the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the Bluff Point foreshore. DPLH are funding an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of the Bluff Point foreshore. (back)
Will the City make shoreline hazard projections publicly available via mapping or GIS tools?
All CHRMAP hazard mapping is already available on the City's CHRMAP project webpage. (back)
Are citizen science partnerships or community monitoring programs being considered as part of the implementation?
The City utilises the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC) citizen science photomon app to gather long-term photographic information along key sections of the Geraldton coastline, including Bluff Point. More information on the app can be found on the . (back)
What are trigger points and what sort of trigger points would be used to implement a coastal adaptation project?
Trigger points are quantifiable indicators that, when met, signal the need for the next stage of adaptation to occur. Examples of coastal adaptation potential triggers include:
Shoreline erosion: If the shoreline recedes by more than a predetermined distance within a year, it may warrant action.
Infrastructure risk: If coastal erosion encroaches within a certain distance of pathways, playgrounds, or other amenities, it could trigger their relocation. (back)
Can you provide some examples of trigger points used elsewhere in Geraldton?
The City and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) adopted a 4m trigger point to commence the removal of the Marine Rescue building at Point Moore. This ensured that the building could be safely removed before it fell into the ocean. A similar trigger point was used for the removal of the toilet block at Triton Place in Sunset Beach.
The Point Moore lease agreements incorporates a trigger point that covers the capacity of utility providers (water, power, etc) to continue to provide a physical service to the leasehold properties. (back)
What happens with new residential sub-divisions in coastal locations?
New sub-divisions need to apply the State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6) from the outset, and build/develop lots behind the 100year coastal erosion hazard line. Many historical sub-divisions on the Westen Australian coastline such as Bluff Point have been developed under previous version of SPP2.6 or even before a coastal planning policy existed and when our knowledge of coastal processes and climate change was less well understood. This is why coastal adaptation planning projects such as this one is now required. (back)
What is the impact of the PMaxP project on Bluff Point?
The Port has undertaken coastal processes study in relation to the PMaxP project which is available on the Port's website. It confirms that sand bypassing will be an ongoing requirement for the management of Geraldton's northern beaches. The main impact of the PMaxP project will be on the Geraldton Foreshore/Town Beaches - and the Port is undertaking additional studies to further understand these impacts. (back)
Are there opportunities to formally plan inland retreat corridors that enable habitat migration over time through strategic land-use planning?
As part of modern development processes coastal reserves and river corridors are identified for environmental conservation. In addition the City has mapped ecological linkages across the City that should be considered in development and planning applications. (back)
Could trade-offs between “protect, accommodate, retreat” options be made clearer through interactive mapping, cost-benefit visuals, or 3D modelling to support broader public understanding?
At this stage of the investigation that level of detail is too great. However, there are a number of existing online resources that already provide a visual appreciation of long-term options and decision-making. (back)
While soft elements are present in some options, has the City considered reef modules or living shorelines as long-term protection strategies with ecological co-benefits?
At this stage of the investigation that level of detail is too great. These nature-based elements could be considered as part of a long-term adaptation approach. The limiting factor with nature-based elements is where the rate of change exceeds the ability of the element to adapt to that change. As such, nature-based approaches would be better considered as a supplementary adaptation treatment. (back)
How much sand is being lost along the coast from Bluff Point each year?
The Bluff Point Coastal Adaptation Options Components 1 and 2 report reviewed the existing coastal studies and investigations. It identifies that in general 5,000-10,000 m3 of sand is lost from the northern beaches shoreline between the Batavia Coast Marina and the Chapman River yearly. Part of this loss is due to the development of Port infrastructure and part of this is due to the changes in coastal processes and conditions. (back)
Since the Port has to put back sand why are they not putting back as much, or even more, than what is lost?
The Port's original environment approvals, that resulted in the creation of the Norther Beaches Stabilisation Program (NBSP), identified the port structures would intercept 12,500m3 at Pages Beach yearly – which should be bypassed to the Northern Beaches – which is has. Recent data indicates that Pages Beach is accreting at 19,000m3 yearly. The Port has therefore updated the NBSP sand bypassing standard to be performance based – to reflect the actual volumes of sand accreting at Pages Beach rather than a set volume. (back)
How long will the project take?
The project is scheduled for completion in November 2025.
Who makes the final decision on which coastal adaptation measure will be implemented?
The Bluff Point Coastal Adaptation Options Report, which will contain the outcomes of this planing process, will be presented to Council for consideration in the next CHRMAP review. (back)
Who is funding the project?
This project is funded by the Western Australian Planning Commission through the Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program.
Who do I contact about the project?
If you can’t find the answer you’re looking for, complete a Questions/Feedback Form or contact the City’s Customer Contact Centre at (08) 9956 6600 or by email at council@cgg.wa.gov.au. (back)