Original source · versioned page text
Annex 10 - Code 8 - Coastal Development & Tidal Works
Attached to the e-mail DA Application - Noosa Oyster Project (2 of 3).
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works
Table 8.2.1: All development
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Development in the erosion prone area
PO1 Development does not occur in the erosion prone area No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO1
unless the development:
Works are coastal dependent development and
1. is one of the following types of development: cannot be feasibly located elsewhere.
a. coastal-dependent development; or
b. temporary, readily relocatable or able to
be abandoned; or
c. essential community infrastructure; or
d. redevelopment of an existing permanent
building or structure that cannot be
relocated or abandoned; and
2. cannot feasibly be located elsewhere.
PO2 Development other than coastal protection work: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO2 (processes still occur, but the
1. avoids impacting on coastal processes; and works may result in reduced erosion).
2. ensures that the protective function of landforms 1) The purpose of the works is not to provide
and vegetation is maintained.
erosion protection, but to restore rock oyster
Note: In considering reconfiguring a lot applications, the
state may require land in the erosion prone area to be ecosystems throughout the Noosa River.
surrendered to the State for coastal management purposes
The design of the works extends to Mean High
under the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995.
Water Springs and the reef substrate will be
Where the planning chief executive receives a copy of a
land surrender requirement or proposed land surrender overtopped by high tides, storm surge, flooding,
notice under the Coastal Protection and Management Act wave action and vessel wake. As such, the works
1995, this must be considered in assessing the application. do not prevent erosion or natural processes from
occurring but may influence these processes.
Three concept module layouts have been
developed (Refer ICM Drawing NROR-2021-02).
The suitability of each module for different
conditions has been broadly defined and there are
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 1 of 20
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 19 pages
Page 2
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
also detailed design requirements regarding
application of these layouts to specific sites.
Concept Layouts 2 & 3 have been adopted for
Phase 1.
Concept Layouts 2 & 3 (segmented longshore
modules) have been designed to minimise impacts
to littoral drift and coastal processes by being
aligned with river flows and providing gaps
between reef patches. Despite this, the reef
patches are anticipated to act as a segmented reef
and provide some sheltering to the shoreline from
wave action and vessel wake and result in
reduced erosion. Reef has been segmented to
limit this impact and allow penetration of waves
and flows without resulting in pockets of increased
erosion.
Concept layout 1 provides habitat that extends out
perpendicular from the shore similar to observed
development of oyster reef habitats. This layout is
only suitable in locations with low sediment
transport and not within Restoration Zone 1 Main
Channel. In these locations there is limited risk of
the works acting as a submerged groyne, which
would have the potential to impact on littoral drift,
erosion and accretion patterns (as well as result in
undesirable burial of sections of the structure).
Potential impacts to coastal erosion have been
minimised through:
Site selection - has initially targeted sites within
the Main Channel that do not experience high
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 2 of 20
Page 3
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
sediment transport or experience considerable
sediment movement.
Concept module layout - Concept Layouts 2 & 3
(segmented longshore modules) show how oyster
reef patches are configured to minimise impacts
to littoral drift and coastal processes by being
aligned with river flows and providing gaps
between oyster reef patches. Despite this, the
oyster reef patches are anticipated to act as a
segmented reef and provide some sheltering to
the shoreline from wave action and vessel wake
and result in reduced erosion. Reef has been
segmented to limit this impact and allow
penetration of waves and flows without resulting
in pockets of increased erosion.
Concept layout 1 provides habitat that extends
out perpendicular from the shore similar to
observed development of oyster reef habitats.
This layout is only suitable in locations with low
sediment transport and not within Restoration
Zone 1 Main Channel. In these locations there is
limited risk of the works acting as a submerged
groyne, which would have the potential to impact
on littoral drift, erosion, and accretion patterns (as
well as result in undesirable burial of sections of
the structure).
Shaped oyster reef patches – Oyster reef
patches may be curved or shaped to reflect the
local bathymetry and site-specific conditions.
Alignment with the shoreline or directing flows
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 3 of 20
Page 4
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
away from the shoreline reduces the potential for
focussing of tidal or flood flows. Tapering of the
reef ends reduces the potential for flow
disturbances (such as eddies) to develop.
Crest level – Crest levels are dictated by
desirable water depths for the target species and
do not extend above MHWS. As with many
natural oyster reefs, they are exposed during
lower tides and inundated during higher tides (or
flood events). When water levels are close to or
over the crest of the reef, wave action and vessel
wake would be expected to overtop the structure.
As such, wave energy reaching the shoreline
(especially for Layout 2 & 3) will be reduced but
not eliminated. While natural erosion may
continue to occur, it is expected to be reduced.
Access space – The provision of an access
space facilitates monitoring of the reef habitat, but
also provides space for natural flows to occur
between oyster reef patches.
Porous rock substrate – waves impacting with
the substrate are dissipated into the voids in the
substrate, with reduced wave energy impacting
on the adjacent shoreline and reduced wave
reflection compared with solid structures.
Erosion is not anticipated but will be monitored
(see Restoration Plan. Section 8.4 Erosion
control).
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 4 of 20
Page 5
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
2) The works do not impact on marine plants or
terrestrial vegetation (except at Tewantin
where the marine plants do not provide a
protective function to the landform). This is
set out in ICM drawing NROR-2021-00 and
the Project Restoration Plan.
PO3 Development is located, designed and constructed to No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO3
minimise the impacts from coastal erosion by:
1) Due to the works nature they cannot be located
1. locating the development as far landward as
practicable; or landward of Mean High Water Springs. The
2. where it is demonstrated that 1 is not feasible, extent of the reef is typically limited to 30m from
mitigate or otherwise accommodate the risks shore and water depths of up to 1m (maximum
posed by coastal erosion. 2m) below mean low water springs.
2) The potential impact from coastal erosion has
been minimised by the site selection and design
aspects identified in the response to PO2.
Erosion is not anticipated but will be monitored
(see Restoration Plan. Section 8.4 Erosion
control).
PO4 Development does not significantly increase the risk or No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO4
impacts to people and property from coastal erosion.
The works are expected to result in reduced risk or
impact of coastal erosion. Erosion is not anticipated
but will be monitored (see Restoration Plan. Section
8.4 Erosion control).
Goat Island is undeveloped and has no infrastructure
in proximity to the site. There is no increased risk to
people and property as a result of the works.
Tewantin is the site that is in closest proximity to
infrastructure. The infrastructure includes a public
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 5 of 20
Page 6
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
boat ramp (30m downstream) and a submarine cable
within the site (minimum distance 10m to reef
patches). Onshore infrastructure includes a concrete
path (~15m landward) and buildings and carparks
well landward of the path. As the shoreline is
characterised by dense mangroves and other
vegetation fringed by existing rocky rubble it is
unlikely that the works will result in increased risk to
people and property as a result of erosion.
Noosa Sound West is undeveloped and the only
infrastructure in proximity to the works is a jetty and
submarine cable more than 30m downstream that are
surrounded by a considerable extent of mangroves.
The site is characterised by very low tidal and flood
velocities and correspondingly low sediment transport
rates. As such, there is no significant increased risk
to this infrastructure as a result of the works. The reef
patches would be expected to dissipate waves and
vessel wake such that erosion may be reduced in the
lee.
Noosa Sound East is adjacent to private properties
however the private buildings lie at a significant
distance to the shoreline along a high escarpment to
the east of Noosa Sound. Infrastructure in close
proximity to the shore is limited to private property
access structures (boat ramp and jetties). The design
allows for a minimum distance of 10m from these
structures. The site is characterised by very low tidal
and flood velocities and correspondingly low sediment
transport rates. As such, there is no significant
increased risk to this infrastructure as a result of the
works. The reef patches would be expected to
dissipate waves and vessel wake such that erosion
may be reduced in the lee.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 6 of 20
Page 7
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
PO5 Development other than coastal protection work No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO5
avoids directly or indirectly increasing the severity of coastal
The works are not primarily for the purpose of coastal
erosion either on or off the site.
protection and have been designed to minimise the
impacts to coastal processes where possible.
However, particularly where erosion is a result of
wave action or vessel wake, the reef patches would
be expected to reduce the severity of coastal erosion.
Erosion is not anticipated but will be monitored (see
Restoration Plan. Section 8.4 Erosion control).
Goat Island is largely sandy and located at the
landward extent of a wide sandy bank. The section of
shoreline selected for the works suffers from minor
erosion that has resulted in no mangroves being
present and the loss of mature vegetation. The
landward row of reef patches is along the sandy
foreshore but is approximately in line with the
adjacent mangroves and the outer row of reef patches
has been offset to avoid the potential for vessel wake
to result in erosion between the inner reefs. As the
reef patches are expected to dissipate wave energy /
reduce vessel wake impacting on the shoreline, it
would be expected to reduce the severity of erosion
landward of the structures and it is hoped that this
may promote the return of mangroves to this section
of shoreline. The alignment and shape of the second
row has been developed to minimise impacts to river
flows and sediment transport to minimise any
potential impacts to adjacent mangrove foreshores.
Tewantin’s shoreline is dominated by mangroves and
the seabed is largely characterised by rocky rubble.
Sandy foreshores are limited to a short pocket beach.
As such, there is no significant littoral transport and it
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 7 of 20
Page 8
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
is unlikely that the works would result in increased
erosion to adjacent foreshores. As the reef patches
would be expected to dissipate wave energy / reduce
vessel wake, it would be expected to reduce erosive
forces and promote the health of the adjacent
mangroves.
Noosa Sound (East and West) is characterised by
very low tidal and flood velocities with correspondingly
low sediment transport rates and the foreshore is
dominated by mangroves. As such, there is little
likelihood of increased risk of erosion to adjacent
foreshores as a result of the works. The severity of
erosion in the lee of the reef patches may be reduced
as a result of dissipating wave energy / reduced
vessel wake. The layout has been developed to
avoid focussing flows close to shore.
PO6 In areas where a coastal building line is present, No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
building work is located landward of the coastal building line
The works are not building work.
unless coastal protection work has been constructed to
protect the development.
Artificial waterways
PO7 Development of artificial waterways, canals and dry- No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
land marinas minimises impacts on coastal resources by:
The works are limited to the Noosa River natural river
1. maintaining the tidal prism volume of the natural system and do not relate to artificial waterways,
waterway to which it is connected canals or dry land marinas.
2. demonstrating a whole-of-life strategy for the
disposal of dredged material.
Coastal protection work
PO8 Works for beach nourishment minimise adverse No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
impacts on coastal processes and avoid any increase in the
The works do not include beach nourishment.
severity of erosion on adjacent land by:
1. sourcing sand from an area that does not
adversely impact on the active beach system
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 8 of 20
Page 9
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
2. ensuring imported sand is compatible with natural
beach sediments and coastal processes of the
receiving beach.
PO9 Erosion control structures are only constructed where No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
there is an imminent threat to buildings or infrastructure of
While the works may have erosion control benefits,
value, and there is no feasible option for either:
they are not primarily for the purpose of controlling
1. beach nourishment; or erosion. The objective is to restore oyster-dominated
2. relocation or abandonment of structures. ecosystems to the Noosa River estuary.
Statutory Note: The monetary value of buildings or
infrastructure should be more than the cost of associated
erosion control structures.
PO10 Erosion control structures minimise interference with No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
coastal processes, or any increase to the severity of erosion
While the works may have erosion control benefits,
on adjacent land by:
they are not primarily for the purpose of controlling
1. locating the erosion control structure as far erosion. The objective is to restore oyster-dominated
landward as practicable and directly adjacent to
the structure it is intended to protect
ecosystems to the Noosa River estuary.
2. where required and feasible, importing sand to the
site to mitigate any increase in the severity of
erosion
3. the design of the structure.
Water quality
PO11 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO11 (subject to monitoring)
1. maintains or enhances environmental values of
receiving waters
As oysters are filter feeders, the works would be
2. achieves the water quality objectives of expected to result in improved water quality outcomes
Queensland waters
for the Noosa River.
3. avoids the release of prescribed water
contaminants to tidal waters.
Note: See Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 for During construction, rock placement activities may
the relevant water quality objectives. result in some suspension of sediment. Construction
materials are to be clean, uncontaminated and free of
topsoil or organic material. Construction is to be
managed to minimise potential for impacts and
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 9 of 20
Page 10
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
monitoring of sensitive receptors is to be undertaken.
Detailed requirements are outlined in ICM drawing
NROR-2021-02 and section 6.4 of the Project
Restoration Plan.
Pre and post construction, the restoration sites will be
monitored for water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, total suspended solids) in line with
Queensland Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines for
the Noosa Lower Estuary (Area NLE1 – Noosa lower
estuary).
Category C and R areas of vegetation
PO12 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO12
1. avoids impacts on category C areas of vegetation Vegetation in category C areas and category R areas
and category R areas of vegetation; or will be avoided.
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on category C
areas of vegetation and category R areas of
vegetation after demonstrating avoidance is not
reasonably possible.
Public use of and access to state coastal land
PO13 Development maintains or enhances public use of No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO13
and access to and along state coastal land (except where
The design provides for a minimum distance of 10m
this is contrary to the protection of coastal resources or
public safety). from foreshore access to maintain public use of and
access to and along state coastal land. Refer ICM
drawing NROR-2021-00.
At the Tewantin site (ICM drawing NROR-2021-04)
upstream of the boat ramp, there is an opening in the
vegetation that could provide public access to the
structure if desirable. In this location a wider 4m
access gap has been provided between shoreward
reef patches to facilitate safe access by a larger
number of persons if this was desirable (e.g. for
education purposes).
PO14 Private marine development ensures that works: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 10 of 20
Page 11
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
1. are used for marine access purposes only The development is not private marine development.
2. minimise the use of state coastal land
3. do not interfere with access between navigable
waterways and adjacent properties.
PO15 Development ensures erosion control structures are No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable
located within the premises they are intended to protect
While the works may have erosion control benefits,
unless there is no feasible alternative.
they are not primarily for the purpose of controlling
erosion. The objective is to restore oyster-dominated
ecosystems to the Noosa River estuary. Site
selection has been based on Habitat Suitability
parameters and Restoration suitability parameters.
Matters of state environmental significance
PO16 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO16
1. avoids impacts on matters of state environmental
significance; or Matters of State environmental significance (MSES) -
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on matters of Tewantin
state environmental significance after • High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably
possible; and • High Ecological Significance Wetlands
3. provides an offset if, after demonstrating all • Noosa River Declared Fish Habitat (A) Area
reasonable avoidance, minimisation and mitigation
measures are undertaken, the development results High Ecological Value (HEV) Waters (wetland) / High
in an acceptable significant residual impact on a Ecological Significance (HES) Wetlands
matter of state environmental significance.
The oyster ecosystem restoration works are designed to
Statutory note: For Brisbane core port land, an offset may enhance the values of the wetland by restoring a complex
only be applied to development on land identified as E1 ecosystem to what is currently a degraded aquatic
Conservation/Buffer, E2 Open Space or Buffer/Investigation environment.
in the Brisbane Port LUP precinct plan. For the Brisbane
Port LUP, see www.portbris.com.au. Mangroves and seagrasses are not within the footprint of
this project and will not be impacted.
Note: Guidance for determining if the development will have
a significant residual impact on the matter of state A small stand of mangroves is shoreward of the proposed
environmental significance is provided in the Significant restoration footprint. Mangrove areal roots extend into the
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 11 of 20
Page 12
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Residual Impact Guideline, Department of State intertidal zone adjacent to the proposed restoration
Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. Where the footprint. Mangrove roots are excluded from the restoration
significant residual impact is considered an acceptable footprint at a minimum distance of 2m. Seagrass is found
impact on the matter of state environmental significance upstream and outside of the restoration footprint and is
and an offset is considered appropriate, the offset should be excluded from the footprint at a minimum distance of 10m
delivered in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act from the footprint.
2004. According to project consultants, ESP, macroalgae growing
on rocks, dominated by Padina sp. is sparse (less than 15%
of the surface area), with a footprint of less than 479m2.
The macroalgal assemblages are in relatively poor condition
due to high sediment loads observed on and around the
existing rocky reef and rubble areas, with some sections of
reef having a high coverage of fine sediment.
ESP also confirmed that given the speed at which Padina
can colonise hard surfaces (dead oyster shell) elsewhere in
the estuary (ESP 2021), it is anticipated that supplementary
habitat provided as part of the proposed restoration project
would be colonised rapidly within 1 year of deployment, and
that coverage would be similar to the current condition
within 2 to 3 years post deployment, particularly in sections
that particularly in sections that remain subtidal and not
covered by fine silt.
The proposed oyster reef patches are designed and
certified by engineers. The oyster reef patches are spaced
(1-4m apart) so as not to not impede fish passage, cause
significant erosion (due to wave refraction) or impact
negatively on natural hydrological processes of the
waterway including laminar river flow. The oyster reef
patches are set away from the shoreline and will not
interfere with overland flow and runoff as a result of floods.
Water quality will be maintained at the restoration sites
during the construction phase in accordance with the
sediment management protocol outlined in this Restoration
Plan (see Project Restoration Plan. Section 6.4: Sediment
management). The restored oyster ecosystems will
enhance water quality by filtering estuarine water, removing
algae and particulate matter from the water column and
converting nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, into
biogenic oyster growth as well as binding these into the
surrounding sediments.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 12 of 20
Page 13
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Water quality will be monitored at the restoration sites using
standard parameters (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, total dissolved solid) and significant changes
reported.
The works will maintain recreational access to shorelines or
the waters in which the oyster ecosystems grow. All
shorelines with recreational access have been excluded
from the selection process. Visual amenity will be
maintained, as less than one third of the reef patch area will
be exposed to view at low tide. Signage used to indicate the
location of the restoration footprints will be optimised, with
agency input, and will generally be considered temporary
until the oyster ecosystems are established, at which time
most signage, if not all will be removed from the river (as
per government direction).
The work also enhances cultural and spiritual connection to
place, enjoying the support of Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners.
Kabi Kabi Elders are providing the project with valuable
cultural and historic information and share the common
interest of restoring oyster beds and reefs to the Noosa
River system.
Declared FHA (A areas) – Noosa River
Works propose to restore ecological values and enhance
fisheries resources at the site by the restoration of oyster
ecosystem to the Tewantin restoration site, which will
provide habitat and food resources, breeding sites and
nursery areas for marine fish.
The works at the Tewantin restoration site will not impact on
mangroves or seagrass.
According to project consultants, ESP, macroalgae growing
on rocks, dominated by Padina sp. is sparse (less than 15%
of the surface area), with a footprint of less than 479m2.
The macroalgal assemblages are in relatively poor condition
due to high sediment loads observed on and around the
existing rocky reef and rubble areas, with some sections of
reef having a high coverage of fine sediment.
ESP also confirmed that given the speed at which Padina
can colonise hard surfaces (dead oyster shell) elsewhere in
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 13 of 20
Page 14
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
the estuary (ESP 2021), it is anticipated that supplementary
habitat provided as part of the proposed restoration project
would be colonised rapidly within 1 year of deployment, and
that coverage would be similar to the current condition
within 2 to 3 years post deployment, particularly in sections
that particularly in sections that remain subtidal and not
covered by fine silt.
Note – Ecological information regarding the Tewantin
restoration site was provide by Ecological Services
Professionals. A full report is included as Annex 1 of the
Project Restoration Plan. See also relevant plans – MSES
(Annex 2), MQ1401 (Annex 3), Noosa River FHA (Annex 4)
Goat Island restoration site
The Goat Island site is within the following MSES:
• High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
• Declared FHA (A and B areas)
• Protected Area (estates)
High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
The oyster ecosystem restoration works are designed
to enhance the values of the wetland by restoring a
complex ecosystem to what is currently a degraded
aquatic environment.
Marine plants are not within the footprint of this
project and will not be impacted.
A small stand of mangroves is shoreward of the
proposed restoration footprint. Mangrove areal roots
extend into the intertidal zone adjacent to the
proposed restoration footprint. Mangrove roots are
excluded from the restoration footprint at a minimum
distance of 2m. Seagrass is found outside of the
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 14 of 20
Page 15
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
restoration footprint and is excluded from the footprint
at a minimum distance of 10m from the footprint.
The proposed oyster reef patches are designed and
certified by engineers. The oyster reef patches are
spaced (1-4m apart) so as not to not impede fish
passage, cause significant erosion (due to wave
refraction) or impact negatively on natural
hydrological processes of the waterway including
laminar river flow. The oyster reef patches are set
away from the shoreline and will not interfere with
overland flow and runoff as a result of floods.
Water quality will be maintained at the restoration
sites during the construction phase in accordance
with the sediment management protocol outlined in
the Project Restoration Plan (Section 6.4: Sediment
Management). The restored oyster ecosystems will
enhance water quality by filtering estuarine water,
removing algae and particulate matter from the water
column and converting nutrients, such as nitrogen
and phosphorus, into biogenic oyster growth as well
as binding these into the surrounding sediments.
Water quality will be monitored at the restoration sites
using standard parameters (pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, salinity, total dissolved solid) and
significant changes reported.
The works will maintain recreational access to
shorelines or the waters in which the oyster
ecosystems grow. All shorelines with recreational
access have been excluded from the selection
process. Visual amenity will be maintained, as less
than one third of the reef patch area will be exposed
to view at low tide. Signage used to indicate the
location of the restoration footprints will be optimised,
with agency input, and will generally be considered
temporary until the oyster ecosystems are
established, at which time most signage, if not all will
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 15 of 20
Page 16
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
be removed from the river (as per government
direction).
The work also enhances cultural and spiritual
connection to place, enjoying the support of Kabi Kabi
Traditional Owners. Kabi Kabi Elders are providing
the project with valuable cultural and historic
information and share the common interest of
restoring oyster beds and reefs to the Noosa River
system.
Declared FHA (A and B areas)
Works propose to restore ecological values and
enhance fisheries resources at the site by the
restoration of oyster ecosystem, which provides
habitat and food resources, breeding sites and
nursery areas for marine fish.
The works at the Goat Island restoration site will not
impact on marine plants.
Protected Area (estates)
The Goat Island Conservation Park is a protected
area that is estuarine in nature and protects
mangroves, related tree communities and tidal flats of
Goat Island. The park is adjacent and landward of
the proposed Goat Island restoration footprint. The
values of the Park are protected from the restoration
works as all mangrove and tree communities within
the park are outside of the restoration footprints.
Aerial mangroves roots, fallen timber and other
marine plants encountered on the tidal flats are
further protected by a 2m separation area between
them and the oyster reef patches as per the Project
Restoration Plan (Section 2.3, Table 2.2., line 1).
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 16 of 20
Page 17
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
The proposed works are designed to minimise the
potential for erosion of the park shoreline. On the
contrary, it is expected that the works may enhance
protection of the park shoreline by attenuating some
wave action due to the high rugosity and positioning
of the oyster reef patches, which will attenuate wave
energy before it reaches the shoreline at all but the
highest points of the tidal cycle (see Project
Restoration Plan, Section 8.4. Erosion control).
Note – Ecological information regarding the Goat Island
restoration site was provide by Ecological Services
Professionals. A full report is included as Annex 1 of the
Project Restoration Plan. See also relevant plans – MSES
(Annex 2), MQ1401 (Annex 3), Noosa River FHA (Annex 4)
Table 8.2.2: All operational work
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Private marine development
PO17 Private marine development does not require the No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
construction of coastal protection work, shoreline or
The works are not private marine development.
riverbank hardening or dredging for marine access
purposes.
Disposal of solid waste or dredged material from artificial waterways
PO18 Solid waste from land and dredged material from No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
artificial waterways is not disposed of in tidal water unless it
The works do not involve dredged material.
is for beneficial reuse.
Disposal of dredged material other than from artificial waterways
PO19 Dredged material is returned to tidal water No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
where this is needed to maintain coastal processes The works do not involve dredged material.
and sediment volume.
PO20 Where it is not needed to maintain coastal No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
processes and sediment volume, the quantity of The works do not involve dredged material.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 17 of 20
Page 18
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
dredged material disposed to tidal water is minimised
through beneficial reuse or disposal on land.
All dredging and any disposal of dredged material in tidal water
PO21 All dredging and any disposal of dredged No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
material in tidal water is: The works do not involve dredged material.
1. demonstrated to be safe with regard to
protection of the marine environment and by
meeting the National Assessment Guidelines
for Dredging 2009, Department of
Environment and Energy, 2009, or later
version; and
2. supported by a monitoring and management
plan that protects the marine environment
and that complies with the National
Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009,
Department of Environment and Energy,
2009, or later version.
Reclamation
PO22 Development does not involve reclamation of No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
land below tidal water, other than for the purposes of: The works are below MHWS and do not involve
1. coastal-dependent development, public reclamation.
marine development or community
infrastructure; or
2. strategic ports, priority ports, boat harbours or
strategic airports and aviation facilities, in
accordance with a statutory land use plan or
master plan, where there is a demonstrated
net benefit for the state or region and no
feasible alternative exists; or
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 18 of 20
Page 19
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
3. coastal protection work or work necessary to
protect coastal resources or coastal
processes.
Table 8.2.3: Operational work which is not assessed by local government
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
PO23 Works are located and designed such that they AO23.1 Tidal work is designed and located in accordance Complies with PO23
continue to operate safely during and following a defined with the Guideline: Building and engineering standards for
The works are designed in accordance with best
storm tide event. tidal works, Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection, 2017. practice guidelines. Rock size and reef slopes have
been selected to be stable under their own weight
during and following a 50 year ARI design event.
Rock structures are inherently flexible and able to
accommodate some movement or displacement of
individual rocks, which may occur during a design
event. This is to be addressed through maintenance
if required in line with ICM drawing NROR-2021-00.
The oyster shell is not inherently stable in the design
site conditions, but shell stability has been optimised
by the use of whole shell, the mixing of shell with the
rocky substrate to secure it within the rocky matrix,
the placement of loose oyster cultch as a single layer
by hand into interstitial voids and the capping of the
volume of loose shell placed to 10kg/m3. Refer ICM
drawing NROR-2021-02 Notes 3 & 5 for placement
requirements. In the event that shell is displaced from
the structure, this will not compromise the ability of
the structure to operate safely and replacement shell
can be placed to enhance oyster recruitment. Where
monitoring identifies displaced shell that is more than
5m outside the Restoration Site, it is to be removed in
the event that it is resulting in negative impacts.
Refer ICM drawing NROR2021-00 Note 4.2 and
Project Restoration Plan. The risk of shell
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 19 of 20
Page 20
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
displacement will reduce over time as the reef
becomes established.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works Page 20 of 20