Original source · versioned page text
MNA_250215_33 Ross Crescent Sunshine Beach_00.pdf
33 ROSS CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH Coastal Hazard Assessment REPORT Produced For 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust Date 22 January 2025
Preview the original
The page text is free to read. Previews and downloads of original files need an account.
Log in to previewLog in to download the original (MNA_250215_33 Ross Crescent Sunshine Beach_00.pdf)
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of pages 2 to 51 (of 53)
Page 2
Document Title | Client Name
Document Verification
Client 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Project name 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazard Assessment
Document title 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazard Assessment
Document sub-title –
Status Report
Date 24 January 2025
Project number 205215
File reference MNA_205215_33 Ross Crescent Sunshine Beach
Revision Description Issued by Date Checked
00 Draft Report PP 24/01/2025 NL
Produced by:
Moffatt & Nichol
Level 4, 80 Ann Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
+61 (0)2 7202 3000
www.moffattnichol.com
i
Page 3
Document Title | Client Name
Table of Contents
Document Verification ..................................................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................... v
Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Site Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Development Proposal ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Site Inspection ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3. Survey .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.4. Dune Toe .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.5. Geotechnical Investigations.................................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Historical Aerial Photograph Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 4
3.1. Satellite Imagery ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
4. Planning Framework ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.1. Planning Act 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1.1. Coastal Management Mapping........................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Noosa Plan 2020 ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
4.2.1. Further Advice .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
5. Coastal Processes............................................................................................................................................................ 14
5.1. Tides and Storm Tide ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1.1. Astronomical Tide ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1.2. Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1.3. Storm Tide .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.2. Wave Climate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.3. Sediment Transport ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
6. Erosion Prone Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
6.1. Erosion Prone Area Assumptions....................................................................................................................................... 18
6.2. Erosion Prone Area Reassessment ................................................................................................................................... 19
6.2.1. Long-term Erosion (N x R).................................................................................................................................................. 19
6.3. Short-term Erosion (C) ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
6.3.1. Recession due to Sea Level Rise (S) ................................................................................................................................. 23
6.3.2. Recession due to Sea Level Rise (S) ................................................................................................................................. 25
6.3.3. Dune Height ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
6.3.4. Summary of the Erosion Prone Area Reassessment ......................................................................................................... 26
6.4. Comparison to BMT (2018) Assessment............................................................................................................................ 28
6.4.1. Beach Profile ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
6.4.2. Depth of closure ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
6.4.3. Dune Toe ............................................................................................................................................................................ 30
6.4.4. Active beach width ............................................................................................................................................................. 30
6.4.5. Dune height ........................................................................................................................................................................ 30
6.4.6. Sediment size ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31
ii
Page 4
Document Title | Client Name
6.4.7. Storm Tide .......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
6.4.8. Wave Height ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.4.9. Long-term erosion .............................................................................................................................................................. 32
6.4.10. Short-term erosion .............................................................................................................................................................. 32
6.4.11. Shoreline recession due to sea level rise ........................................................................................................................... 34
6.4.12. Dune Slumping ................................................................................................................................................................... 35
6.5. Comparison summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 36
7. Coastal Protection Works ................................................................................................................................................ 37
8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 38
9. References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Appendix A. Development Proposal .........................................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B. Erosion Prone Area Plans ....................................................................................................................................B-2
Appendix C. Site Survey by AJS Surveys................................................................................................................................ C-3
Appendix D. Geotechnical report ............................................................................................................................................. D-4
iii
Page 5
Document Title | Client Name
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2-2 Toe of frontal dune location (21 March 2024).................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3-1 1972 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 3-2 1974 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 3-3 1981 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 3-4 1988 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3-5 1994 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3-6 1999 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3-7 2004 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au) ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3-8 November 2018 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3-9 DEA recession analysis near the site. ............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3-10 DEA Annual Coastlines near the site .......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3-11 CoastSat shoreline position timeseries approximately 10m south of the site.............................................................. 10
Figure 4-1 Coastal Management District (source: SARA DA Mapping System)............................................................................. 11
Figure 4-2 Erosion Prone Area (source: SARA DA Mapping System) ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 5-1 Wave Rose for Sunshine Beach (BMT, 2013)............................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5-2 Offshore Significant Wave Height Design Curves (BMT, 2013) .................................................................................... 16
Figure 6-1 Sketch of pre-storm and predicted post-storm profiles based on Vellinga (1983) ......................................................... 20
Figure 6-2 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at ETA596 for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level.................................................................. 22
Figure 6-3 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at 33 Ross Crescent for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level .................................................. 23
Figure 6-4 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at ETA602 for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level.................................................................. 23
Figure 6-5 Conceptualisation of recession due to sea level rise due to Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962)................................................ 24
Figure 6-6 Dune slumping for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach................................................................................................ 26
Figure 6-7 2100 Extent of the reassessed erosion prone area ....................................................................................................... 27
Figure 6-8 Erosion cut profile for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach ........................................................................................... 28
Figure 6-9 Beach profile and storm profile ETA 602 (BMT, 2018) .................................................................................................. 30
Figure 6-10 Dune heights and beach profile ................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6-11 North Sea storm surge hydrograph (Vellinga, 1983) ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 6-12 BMT (2018) conceptual illustration of the erosion prone area components ................................................................ 33
Figure 6-13 ETA596 Velinga calculation (BMT, 2018).................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6-14 ETA602 Velinga calculation (BMT, 2018).................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6-15 Global mean sea level rise from 2006 to 2100 (IPCC, 2014) ...................................................................................... 35
iv
Page 6
Document Title | Client Name
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Relevant Performance Outcomes of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code (Noosa Plan 2020)... 13
Table 5.1: Noosa Head Tidal Planes (Maritime Safety Queensland, 2024) ................................................................................... 14
Table 5.2: Adopted Storm Tide Levels (excluding wave setup) for Sunshine Beach (Aurecon, 2013)........................................... 15
Table 6.1: Summary of Long-Term Recession Results from BMT (2018) ...................................................................................... 19
Table 6.2: Design Storm Events for Short-term Beach Erosion Assessment ................................................................................. 21
Table 6.3: Predicted Short-term Erosion - Sunshine Beach ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 6.4: Summary of Shoreline Recession due to Sea Level Rise at 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach................................ 25
Table 6.5: Reassessed Erosion Prone Area for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach .................................................................... 27
Table 6.6: Comparison of erosion prone area calculation parameters ........................................................................................... 29
Table 6.7: Comparison of erosion prone area components and width ........................................................................................... 29
v
Page 7
Document Title | Client Name
Disclaimer
Moffatt & Nichol devoted effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent
professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) the time and budget
available for its work, to ensure that the data contained in this report is accurate as of the date of its
preparation. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by Moffatt &
Nichol from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by
and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for
inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, the Client's agents and representatives, or any third-party data
source used in preparing or presenting this study. Moffatt & Nichol assumes no duty to update the
information contained herein unless it is separately retained to do so pursuant to a written agreement signed
by Moffatt & Nichol and the Client.
Moffatt & Nichol’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither Moffatt & Nichol nor its respective
affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods disclosed
in this document. Any recipient of this document other than the Client, by their acceptance or use of this
document, releases Moffatt & Nichol and its affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential or
special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty (express or implied), tort or otherwise, and
irrespective of fault, negligence and strict liability.
This report may not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity,
or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client.
This study may not be used for purposes other than those for which it was prepared or for which prior
written consent has been obtained from Moffatt & Nichol.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the name of "Moffatt
& Nichol" in any manner without the prior written consent of Moffatt & Nichol. No party may abstract, excerpt
or summarise this report without the prior written consent of Moffatt & Nichol. Moffatt & Nichol has served
solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject
matter hereof. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically identified in the
agreement between the Client and Moffatt & Nichol or otherwise expressly approved in writing by Moffatt
& Nichol, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.
This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the
Client or a party so authorised by Moffatt & Nichol in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a
reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its
entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon
the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding Moffatt & Nichol liable in any way for any
impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from the project resulting from changes in "external" factors such
as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally,
competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of consumers or competitors and changes in the
owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects.
This document may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to Moffatt & Nichol’s
expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by
the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,”
“should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect Moffatt & Nichol’s views
and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of this study and are subject to future economic
conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially
from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed
in this study. These factors are beyond Moffatt & Nichol’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, Moffatt
& Nichol makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in this
study will actually be achieved.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions
and considerations.
vi
Page 8
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
1. Introduction
Moffatt & Nichol has been engaged by the trustee of the 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust, the owner of 33
Ross Crescent (Lot 6 RP216711), Sunshine Beach to respond to a request for further information issued
by Noosa Shire Council dated 19 December 2024 in relation to a development application. In the request
for further information, Noosa Shire Council requested that the coastal hazards assessment report prepared
by Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV, 2024) be updated with the revised assessment.
The assessment provided herein addresses the request for further information issued by Noosa Shire
Council and provides an updated version of the coastal hazards assessment for the subject property
previously prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV, 2024).
The owner intends to demolish the existing house and construct a new house on the site. The site is subject
to coastal planning constraint layers and this coastal hazard risk assessment is required to address the
assessment requirements of Noosa Shire Council.
The assessment reported herein provides a site-specific assessment of erosion hazard risk, including a
site-specific assessment of the erosion prone area width and an assessment of the beach erosion likely to
occur due to an extreme storm event. Accordingly, it provides an estimate of erosion vulnerability along
this section of beach and will be used to address the assessment criteria considered by Noosa Shire
Council. It should be noted that that the reported erosion prone area is an estimate of erosion vulnerability.
For this development application, an extreme event consisting of; a 100-year ARI storm tide level, sea level
rise of 0.8m and a 100-year ARI significant wave height has been adopted. An additional assessment of
short-term erosion associated with a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD has also been undertaken to address
the request for further information issued by Noosa Shire Council.
1
Page 9
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
2. Site Description
The site is a 3,520 square metre residential property located at 33 Ross Crescent (Lot 6 RP216711),
Sunshine Beach, see Figure 2-1. The site slopes away from Ross Crescent towards the dunes that adjoin
Sunshine Beach, with a change in elevation from Ross Crescent to the rear property boundary of
approximately 14m. The rear property boundary that adjoins the dune is elevated at approximately 11m
above Australian Height Datum (AHD).
Sunshine Beach is located south of Noosa Head and has an east-south-easterly aspect with exposure to
waves from the north-east through to south-east directions.
Figure 2-1 Site Location
2.1. Development Proposal
The subject property is currently occupied by an existing house. It is proposed to construct a three-level
house and a pool on the property. The architectural drawings of the proposed house and pools are
presented in Appendix A.
2.2. Site Inspection
A site inspection was undertaken by Paul Prenzler on 21 March 2024, to observe the site conditions and
undertake field measurements of the beach.
The ‘seaward toe of the frontal dune’ was mapped using a handheld GPS to assist with determining the
erosion prone area width at the site. The ‘seaward toe of the frontal dune’ was determined based on the
guidance provided in the ‘Coastal Hazards Technical Guide’ (Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection, 2013) and the notes of the erosion prone area plan NOS3A dated 8 July 2015 prepared by the
2
Page 10
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Department of Environment and Science (refer Appendix B). Figure 2-1 shows the ‘seaward toe of the
frontal dune’ at Sunshine Beach near the subject site.
2.3. Survey
Survey of the site and adjoining beach system was undertaken by AJS Surveys and provided by Shaun
Lockyer Architects on the 24th of October 2023. The survey is presented in Appendix C.
The survey has been supplemented with bathymetry survey captured in 2011 as part of the Sunshine Coast
Bathymetric LiDAR (Department of Environment and Science, 2011) to describe the beach profile through
the surf zone to the depth of closure.
2.4. Dune Toe
A level of 2.3m AHD has been adopted as the toe of the dune based on site observations, analysis of aerial
photography, detailed survey and the current vegetation line (refer Figure 2-2).
The distance from the rear property boundary of the site to the toe of the frontal dune is approximately 70m.
Figure 2-2 Toe of frontal dune location (21 March 2024)
2.5. Geotechnical Investigations
The geotechnical conditions at the site are being assessed by Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd. The
geotechnical investigation will include the design of the house foundations, including foundation type and
capacity with consideration of potential beach erosion.
The geotechnical report can be provided on request.
3
Page 11
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
3. Historical Aerial Photograph Analysis
Aerial imagery has been examined to assess historical shifts in beach position at the site. Figure 3-1 to
Figure 3-8 display aerial photographs taken in 1972, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2018,
illustrating the position of the current, March 2024, toe of the frontal dune in relation to the shoreline position
at the time of each image (estimated from the aerial photographs). The 2024 toe of frontal dune was
determined from the vegetation line captured using handheld GPS.
The beach was significantly eroded in 1971 and 1974, attributed to a high frequency of tropical cyclones
impacting the south-eastern Queensland coastline in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The 1974 aerial
photograph depicts the most severe erosion in the photographic record, featuring extensive scarping of the
vegetated dune adjacent to the site. Note the erosion scarp in 1974 was located approximately 20m east
of the subject property.
Since the 1981 photograph, the beach has shown signs of recovery. Currently, it is in an accretive phase,
as depicted in Figure 2-1. Although there was erosion in 2018, the beach has since accreted and to its
current position.
Between 1960 and 1979, the site was impacted by 18 tropical cyclones within 200km of the site, followed
by seven tropical cyclones between 1980 and 1999, and three since 2000. The decrease in the number of
tropical cyclones affecting the southeast Queensland region since 1980 is reflected in the observed beach
recovery during this period.
Figure 3-1 1972 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
4
Page 12
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-2 1974 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
Figure 3-3 1981 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
5
Page 13
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-4 1988 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
Figure 3-5 1994 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
6
Page 14
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-6 1999 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
Figure 3-7 2004 Aerial Photograph (qimagery.information.qld.gov.au)
7
Page 15
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-8 November 2018 Aerial Photograph
3.1. Satellite Imagery
Satellite imagery can be used to determine shoreline position and behaviour from 30+ years of satellite
imagery. Satellite platforms include Landsat 5 (1984 - 2013), 7 (1999 - present), 8 (2013 - present) and
Sentinel-2 (2015 - present), with pixel resolution ranging between 10m and 15m and image capture varying
from 5 to 16 days.
Two independent tools have been developed to analyse the satellite imagery, which are:
1. CoastSat a Python tool that enables extraction of shoreline position from individual satellite images
at any coastline worldwide using sub-pixel extraction methods (Vos et al., 2019a, 2019b). While
the horizontal errors for detected shoreline range have been reported to be between 7.3m and
12.7m Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) considering individual images, the bias of the data is much
lower (Vos et al., 2019a). As such, the temporal resolution of the data means that signals can be
discerned at seasonal and greater timescales.
2. Digital Earth Australia (DEA) is a tool to accurately map the boundary between land and water (the
‘waterline’) (Bishop-Taylor et al, 2019). The tool uses the same sub-pixel extraction method as
CoastSat. However, DEA combines aerials to provide a single, annualised shoreline position and
is therefore suited to determining long-term trends.
Outputs from both CoastSat and DEA are available online, with key outputs for the coastline adjacent to
the site are provided in Figure 3-9 to Figure 3-11.
8
Page 16
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-9 from DEA indicates that the position of the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of the site since
the late 1980s has experienced no significant change, as has been reported to the north and south of the
site. This indicates that the beach in front of the site is very stable. The shoreline position from the DEA
dataset in Figure 3-10 indicates that the beach has generally been stable from 1988 to the present (only
~35m of shoreline movement).
The CoastSat time series in Figure 3-11 indicates that the shoreline at this location was relative stable.
Figure 3-11 indicates the shoreline fluctuated by approximately ±30m from the mean shoreline position
annually, some of which may be due to the RSME of the dataset. However, it is likely that episodic recession
and progradation would occur due to annual beach rotation and storm events.
Care should be taken when analysing shoreline recession to ensure the data captures long term trends
rather than annual or interdecadal variability.
Figure 3-9 DEA recession analysis near the site.
9
Page 17
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 3-10 DEA Annual Coastlines near the site
Figure 3-11 CoastSat shoreline position timeseries approximately 10m south of the site
10
Page 18
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
4. Planning Framework
The planning framework in Queensland is supported by the Planning Act 2016 which outlines the plan-
making system that guides strategic planning and development assessment. In relation to coastal
development there are specific requirements that are discussed in the following sections.
Planning Act 2016
4.1. Planning Act 2016
The Planning Act 2016 details the planning and development approval framework for Queensland. In
relation to coastal development the assessment triggers are based on the coastal management district and
erosion prone area.
4.1.1. Coastal Management Mapping
The Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 provides for the declaration of erosion prone areas,
coastal management districts and coastal building lines, which are used as triggers for development
approvals under the Planning Act 2016.
The site is located within two coastal management mapping layers prepared by the Department of
Environment, Science and Innovation. These mapping layers are:
• Coastal management district (see Figure 4-1); and,
• Coastal area - erosion prone area (see Figure 4-2).
Figure 4-1 Coastal Management District (source: SARA DA Mapping System)
11
Page 19
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 4-2 Erosion Prone Area (source: SARA DA Mapping System)
4.2. Noosa Plan 2020
The proposed development is code assessable and is subject to the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity
Overlay of the Noosa Plan 2020. Table 4-1 outlines the relevant assessment criteria for the Coastal
Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay which this coastal hazard assessment must address.
The assessment reported herein provides a site-specific assessment of erosion hazard risk, including a
site-specific assessment of the erosion prone area width and an assessment of the beach erosion likely to
occur due to an extreme storm event. Accordingly, it provides an estimate of erosion vulnerability along
this section of beach and will be used to address the assessment criteria considered by Noosa Shire
Council. It should be noted that that the reported erosion prone area is an estimate of erosion vulnerability.
For this development application, an extreme event consisting of; a 100-year ARI storm tide level, sea level
rise of 0.8m and a 100-year ARI significant wave height has been adopted.
12
Page 20
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
TABLE 4.1: RELEVANT PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES OF THE COASTAL PROTECTION AND SCENIC AMENITY OVERLAY
CODE (NOOSA PLAN 2020)
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Development in Coastal Erosion Areas
PO1 No acceptable outcome
Development allows for natural fluctuations of the coast and provided.
foreshores to occur, including allowance of climate change.
Editor's note—Coastal erosion areas are identified on Council's
online mapping for the years 2040, 2070 and 2100.
Protection of dunes and coastal creeks
PO2 No acceptable outcome
Development is located, designed and constructed to: provided.
• maintain dune crest heights and minimise and mitigate the
risk to development from wave overtopping and storm tide
inundation; and
• maintain or enhance coastal ecosystems and natural
features such as coastal creeks and marine plants including
mangroves, salt marshes and coastal wetlands, to assist in
protecting and buffering communities and infrastructure
from sea-level rise and coastal inundation impacts.
4.2.1. Further Advice
Noosa Shire Council issued a request for further advice dated 19 December 2024 in relation to the
development application. The request for further advice noted that Council’s peer review of the RHDHV
(2024) requested a recalculation of the Erosion Prone Area using a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD within
the Vellinga equation for the design storm event component (C), to offset uncertainty regarding findings of
the Aurecon (2013) study, and update the coastal hazard assessment report accordingly.
Section 6 of this Report has been updated to present a revised assessment of the Erosion Prone Area
based on a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD. It should be noted that a level of 1.79m AHD corresponds to
approximately a 300-year ARI event based on the storm tide levels reported in Section 5.1.3.
13
Page 21
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
5. Coastal Processes
The coastal processes of interest to this investigation are water levels (including sea level rise predictions),
wave conditions, and sediment transport processes.
5.1. Tides and Storm Tide
The water levels of interest for a reassessment of the erosion prone area include the astronomical tide,
storm tide and the predicted rise in mean sea level associated with climate change. The following sections
describe the water levels adopted for the assessment.
5.1.1. Astronomical Tide
Sunshine Beach experiences semi-diurnal tides with a tidal range of 1.4m at spring tides. Table 5-1
presents the published tidal planes for Noosa Head (Maritime Safety Queensland, 2024) which are
considered consistent with conditions at Sunshine Beach, due to the proximity.
TABLE 5.1: NOOSA HEAD TIDAL PLANES (MARITIME SAFETY QUEENSLAND, 2024)
Tidal Plane Water Level Water Level
(m above LAT) (m AHD)
Highest Astronomical Tide 2.35 1.23
Mean High Water Spring 1.85 0.66
Mean High Water Neap 1.52 0.33
Mean Sea Level 1.15 -0.06
Mean Low Water Neap 0.79 -0.41
Mean Low Water Spring 0.45 -0.74
Lowest Astronomical Tide - -1.12
5.1.2. Sea Level Rise
The effects of climate change associated with emission of greenhouse gases has caused a rise in mean
sea level above pre-industrial levels, and sea levels are predicted to continue to rise into the future. The
Queensland Government has adopted a predicted sea level rise of 0.8m by the year 2100 above present
day mean sea level. It is noted that BMT (2018) adopted the following sea level rise allowances (above
present day mean sea level) as part of phase 3 of the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy (CHAS):
• 0.2m by 2040,
• 0.5m by 2070, and
• 0.8m by 2100.
The adopted sea level rise allowances are consistent with industry practice and will be used for this
assessment.
5.1.3. Storm Tide
Storm tide is the total water level associated with the combination of the normal astronomical tide and the
tidal surge from a storm event (e.g., tropical cyclone). There have been several previous storm tide studies
undertaken for the Sunshine Coast with the most recent being the ‘Sunshine Coast Storm Tide Study’
(Aurecon, 2013). The design storm tide levels determined by Aurecon (2013) for the 100, 500 and 1000-
year ARI events are presented in Table 5-2.
Noosa Shire Council has undertaken a broad-scale reassessment of coastal hazards from Peregian Beach
to Teewah Beach as part of the ‘Noosa Shire Council Coastal Hazards Risk, Vulnerability and Adaptation
14
Page 22
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Assessment’ (BMT, 2018). The 100-year ARI storm tide level of 2.2m AHD was adopted by BMT (2018)
for the assessment of the erosion prone area width at Sunshine Beach which included wave setup.
To address the SDAP (Performance Outcome 6 of State Code 8) outlined in Section 4.1 the vulnerability
of the proposed property and house to an extreme storm event has been considered and assessed. As
discussed in the introduction, a 100-year ARI storm tide level of 1.74m AHD had been adopted for the
extreme analysis by RHDHV (2024). The extreme event assessment is discussed further in Section 6.2.2.
In response to the request for further information from Noosa Shire Council date 19 December 2024, storm
tide (excluding wave setup) of 1.79m AHD has been also assessed to offset any uncertainty regarding
finding of the Aurecon (2013) study. This corresponds to an approximate 300-year ARI event
TABLE 5.2: ADOPTED STORM TIDE LEVELS (EXCLUDING WAVE SETUP) FOR SUNSHINE BEACH (AURECON, 2013)
Return Period Current Climate
(years ARI) Storm Tide Level (m AHD)
100 1.74
500 1.84
1000 1.89
5.2. Wave Climate
The wave climate at Sunshine Beach is influenced by both locally wind-generated sea and ocean swell.
Sea describes wind generated waves where wind energy is still being transferred to the ocean. Swell
describes wind generated waves that have travelled out of their generating area. Swell characteristically
exhibits smoother, more regular, and uniform crests and a longer period than sea. In open coastal areas
sea waves generated by local winds are often superimposed on swell waves.
The wave climate for Sunshine Beach has been previously reported by BMT (2013), ‘Coastal Processes
Study for the Sunshine Coast’ prepared for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. Wave roses shown by
BMT WBM (2013) indicate that the wave climate for Sunshine Beach is dominated by waves from the east-
southeast direction (refer Figure 5-1).
The design offshore significant wave heights for the Sunshine Coast have been previously published by
BMT (2013), refer Figure 5-2. For this assessment a 100-year ARI offshore significant wave height of 6.2m
has been adopted to be consistent with the ‘Coastal Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast’ prepared by
BMT (2013).
15
Page 23
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 5-1 Wave Rose for Sunshine Beach (BMT, 2013)
Figure 5-2 Offshore Significant Wave Height Design Curves (BMT, 2013)
16
Page 24
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
5.3. Sediment Transport
Sand is transported over time in a net northerly direction along the Sunshine Coast, driven by the prevailing
south-easterly wave climate in a process known as littoral drift or longshore sediment transport. The
average longshore littoral transport rate at Sunshine Beach has previously been estimated at 23,300m3
annually (BMT, 2013).
Noosa Head, at the northern end of Sunshine Beach, is a control feature that influences sand transport
processes. The net northerly littoral transport of sand along Sunshine Beach is interrupted by the headland
which traps sand on the southern side (i.e. Sunshine Beach) until such time that the beach to the south is
effectively “full” at which point some sediment bypassing of the headland will occur. Noosa Head also
provides protection to Sunshine Beach from waves from the northeast quadrant that will be more prevalent
during the summer cyclone season.
It is also likely that Noosa Head would assist with post-storm event beach recovery of Sunshine Beach
through the trapping of long-term net northerly littoral transport of sand and associated rebuilding of the
beach system towards a beach full state. The location of the site relative to Noosa Heads, and ongoing
littoral transport process, ensure that (in the absence of sea level rise) the foreshore at the site will fluctuate
within a steady state envelope of positions; subject to short term storm erosion events, but long term always
accretes towards a beach full state controlled by the headland.
17
Page 25
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
6. Erosion Prone Area
The erosion prone area identifies land that may be vulnerable to coastal erosion or tidal inundation over a
100-year planning period and are declared under section 70 of the Coastal Protection and Management
Act 1995.
The ‘Coastal Hazards Technical Guide’ (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013)
provides guidance on the calculation of an erosion prone area. The erosion prone area width is based on
the following:
• short-term erosion from extreme storm events (e.g., a tropical cyclone);
• a dune scarp component to accommodate slumping of the erosion scarp following short-term
erosion;
• long-term erosion associated with a deficit in sediment supply;
• shoreline recession due to sea level rise; and
• a 40% safety factor.
The Erosion prone area is calculated using the following equation:
= × + + × 1+ +
Where:
= Erosion Prone Area width (m)
= planning period (years)
= rate of long-term erosion (m/year)
= short-term erosion from the design storm event (m)
= recession due to sea level rise (m)
= factor of safety (0.4)
= Dune scarp component to allow for slumping of the erosion scarp (m)
6.1. Erosion Prone Area Assumptions
The assessment of the erosion prone area is based on several assumptions associated with the
recommended assessment methodology. These assumptions include:
• Storm events are of a sufficient duration to allow for development of a storm response beach
profile;
• The characteristics of the beach sediment are uniform both across and through the beach profile;
• the long-term erosion trend is independent of recession due to sea level rise.
• There are no physical features along the beach that would influence longshore sediment
transport; and,
• The beach has sufficient time to recover following a beach erosion event.
The above assumptions, combined with a 40% factor of safety lead to a conservative assessment of
erosion vulnerability. It is reasonable to apply a precautionary approach to erosion vulnerability
assessment given uncertainty regarding issues associated with sea level rise and storm events associated
with climate change impacts.
18
Page 26
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
6.2. Erosion Prone Area Reassessment
The declared erosion prone area for the Noosa Shire Council area is provided on Department of
Environment and Science Plan Number NOS3A dated 8 July 2015 (refer Appendix B). This shows an
erosion prone area width for Sunshine Beach of 175m measured inland from the seaward toe of the frontal
dune.
Noosa Shire Council has completed a Coastal Hazard Adaptation Study (CHAS) through the QCoast2100
program. Phase 3 of the CHAS involved refining coastal hazard mapping, including reassessment of the
erosion prone area. The study was undertaken by BMT (2018). It should be noted that the assessment by
BMT (2018) was at a beach compartment scale and did not provide site-specific estimation of erosion
vulnerability. The beach compartment which 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach falls in is based off survey
data from ETA 602. It should be noted that this profile is located 530m to the north of the site.
The following sections will review each component of the Erosion prone area based on site specific
conditions.
6.2.1. Long-term Erosion (N x R)
The long-term erosion component is based on the selected planning period (N) and the average annual
rate of long-term erosion (R).
In relation to the planning period, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) states,
“The long-term erosion component (excluding sea level rise) of the calculation is often cyclical in nature
and typically of a decadal scale. For this reason, it is considered the estimated annual rate of long-term
erosion is only applied for a 50-year period”. Where there is no clear evidence of long-term erosion trends,
the Department recommends a nominal provision of 10m.
The annual rate of long-term erosion (R) reflects changes to sediment supply to a beach and where there
is a long-term deficit in sediment supply this results in a longer-term recession of the shoreline.
BMT (2018) has calculated a long-term erosion rate of 0.03m/year for Sunshine Coast at beach profile line
ETA 602. Table 6-1 provides a summary of BMT (2018) estimated long-term erosion for 2040, 2070 and
2100.
TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM RECESSION RESULTS FROM BMT (2018)
Beach Survey Annual Recession Long-term Recession (m)
Profile Rate (m/year)
2040 2070 2100
Sunshine Beach ETA 602 0.03 0.7 1.6 2.5
The subject site is located 1.7km south of Noosa Headland which plays a significant role in sediment
transport processes along this beach as discussed in Section 5.3. This is supported by the aerial and
satellite imagery presented in Section 3 which has shown recovery and progradation of the beach adjacent
to the site since severe storm event related erosion in the early 1970’s. Further, Section 3 highlights
sensitivities associated with reporting intervals for long term recession and the need to select suitable start
and end dates for any analysis, which are not influenced by episodic erosion events.
Given the long-term stability of this section of coast a nominal 10m has been adopted in accordance with
the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013).
19
Page 27
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
6.3. Short-term Erosion (C)
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) recommends the calculation of short-term
erosion based on a 100-year ARI storm event using the method developed by Vellinga (1983). The equation
developed by Vellinga is as follows:
.
7.6 7.6 . .
= 0.47 . + 18 − 2.0
0.0268
Where:
= Deep water significant wave height (m)
= Fall velocity of sand (m/s)
= The distance from the dune foot (m)
= Depth below storm surge (m)
The relationship between sediment grain size and fall velocity has been derived from laboratory tests and
is given by the following equation (Vellinga, 1983).
log 1 = 0.476 log + 2.18 log + 3.19
Where:
= Fall velocity of sand (m/s)
= The grain size of the sand (m)
Figure 6-1 shows a conceptual representation of the erosion and accretion zones associated with storm
induced erosion predicted by Vellinga (1983).
Figure 6-1 Sketch of pre-storm and predicted post-storm profiles based on Vellinga (1983)
The Department provides the following recommendation in relation to defining a storm event:
20
Page 28
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
“For a tide-dominated coast where storm tide levels can be large, the parameters adopted
for the minimum design storm are:
• storm tide level corresponding to an average recurrence interval of 1-in-100 years; and,
• wave height for a moderate storm using the 1-in-20-year significant wave height (Hs).
However, for wave-dominated coastlines where extreme storm tide levels can be relatively
minor, such as the Gold Coast, the significant wave height and duration of the storm event
are major factors influencing short-term erosion, rather than storm tide. Hence it may be
necessary to consider a larger wave event (for example, a storm event with a 1-in-100 ARI)
and a moderate storm tide level. Decisions on appropriate parameters to be used must be
based on local conditions and the experience of the coastal engineer undertaking the
assessment.”
In relation to the probability of such an event occurring the Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection (2013) states:
“Although the abovementioned probability of occurrence may appear to be fairly high, it is
considered that this choice is reasonable when considered in conjunction with the method
used to determine erosion prone area widths. This method implies that the erosion prone
area has sufficient width to accommodate the design storm erosion in 100 years’ time,
when all of the estimated long-term erosion has occurred. Therefore, it also follows that for
much of the 100-year planning period, the erosion prone area is sufficient to accommodate
a larger storm than the one selected for design purposes. In fact, in the most critical last
10 years of such a planning period, there is only a 10% probability of occurrence of the
design storm. Thus, the risk of a storm breaching the entire erosion prone area at some
time during the 100-year period will be significantly less than 63%.”
The RHDHV (2024) assessment adopted a combination of a 100-year ARI Storm Tide level and 100-year
ARI significant wave height as the design storm event for the reassessment of erosion prone area (refer
Table 6-2). It should be noted that the joint probability of a combined 100-year ARI storm tide and 100-
year ARI significant wave height is likely to be significantly greater than a 100-year ARI storm event. Noosa
Shire Council have requested that the short-term erosion also be assessed based on a storm tide level of
1.79m AHD, which is approximately a 300-year ARI event. The design parameters for the assessment of
the short-term beach erosion are presented in Table 6-2.
TABLE 6.2: DESIGN STORM EVENTS FOR SHORT-TERM BEACH EROSION ASSESSMENT
Storm Component Storm Event (100-year ARI)
RHDHV (2024) M&N (2025)
Significant Wave Height 6.2m 6.2m
Storm Tide Level 1.74m AHD 1.79m AHD
Sea Level Rise - -
An assessment of the short-term erosion associated with the event presented in Table 6-2 was undertaken
for the beach profile seaward of the property and ETA596 (to the south) and ETA602 (to the north). The
site profile was derived from site survey and 2011 bathymetric LiDAR data, while ETA596 and ETA602 was
derived from 2015 LiDAR and 2011 LiDAR bathymetry. These profiles were analysed to obtain an average
short-term erosion.
Vellinga (1983) has been used to derive the storm erosion profile based on the design storm events
presented in Table 6-2. The short-term erosion distance has been measured horizontally from the current
21
Page 29
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
toe of the frontal dune (refer Section 2.3) to the base of the erosion scarp predicted by Vellinga (1983). As
discussed above in Section 2.3 the current toe of frontal dune is 2.3m AHD which is higher than the design
water levels assessed.
The average of the short-term erosion values for ETA596, site and ETA602 profiles provides a
representative short-term erosion value for this compartment spanning 2.5km of Sunshine Beach.
Table 6-3 presents the predicted short-term erosion associated with the 100-year ARI design storm event
for the three profiles. This shows an average storm erosion cut of 20m is predicted to occur for this section
of Sunshine Beach. The storm erosion profiles associated with a 1.19m AHD storm tide for, ETA 596, 33
Ross Crescent, and ETA 602, is shown in Figure 6-2, Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 respectively.
TABLE 6.3: PREDICTED SHORT-TERM EROSION - SUNSHINE BEACH
Profile Short-term Erosion (m)
RHDHV (2024) M&N (2025)
ETA 596 15 (nominal) 15 (nominal)
33 Ross Crescent 20 21
ETA 602 20 22
Average (rounded up) 19 20
Figure 6-2 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at ETA596 for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level
22
Page 30
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-3 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at 33 Ross Crescent for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level
Figure 6-4 storm profile (Vellinga, 1983) at ETA602 for a 1.79m AHD storm tide level
6.3.1. Recession due to Sea Level Rise (S)
As discussed in Section 5.1.2, sea levels are predicted to rise in response to climate change and the
Queensland Government have adopted a sea level rise of 0.8m above present day mean sea level by the
year 2100. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) requires the shoreline response
to sea level rise be considered when assessing erosion prone area widths. An industry standard practice
23
Page 31
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
for the assessment of shoreline recession due to sea level rise is to apply the ‘Bruun Rule’ (Bruun, 1962),
see Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-5 Conceptualisation of recession due to sea level rise due to Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962)
The Bruun Rule assumes an equilibrium beach profile is maintained with rising sea level resulting in an
elevation and landward movement of the profile, as shown in Figure 6-5. The Bruun Rule is given by:
r=
Where:
= shoreline recession due to sea level rise (m)
= horizontal distance of the active beach profile (m)
= rise in mean sea level (m)
= vertical height of the active beach profile (m)
The Bruun Rule assumes that:
• the beach and dune consist of a uniform and loose sand material. It cannot be applied to rocky
headlands or hard coasts;
• the beach responds to an elevated sea level such that an equilibrium profile is always attained;
• the beach is stable in the long term (i.e. there is no net accretion or recession). Gradients in
longshore sediment transport are ignored; and,
• all the eroded sediment is redistributed along the profile in the cross-shore direction.
The geotechnical assessments conducted in the nearby vicinity of the site has shown the underlying soil
profile includes indurated sand layers (i.e., coffee rock), which may slow recession rates.
Recent research undertaken by Geoscience Australia (2021) indicates that 76% of the north-eastern coast
of Australia has been stable from 1988 to present with 11.3% retreating by more than 0.3m/year and 12.8%
accreting by more 0.3m/year. Similar trends are observed at all locations around Australia, except for the
western coast and north-western coast. During this period, sea level rise is reported to be approximately 2-
3mm/yr (5-10cm from 1988 to present). The observations from Geoscience Australia does not match to
hypothesis of long-term recession due to sea level rise predicted by the Brunn rule. Therefore, there is
uncertainty and potentially conservatism in this approach and is consistent with the Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) requirements.
24
Page 32
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
The assessment's determination of dune height relied on an iterative approach, which is discussed in more
detail in Section 6.3.2. The resultant dune height determined through this iterative process was 11m. The
profile width from the dune height to depth of closure (-12m) is 600m. Therefore, a profile width of 600m, a
depth of closure of -12m together, and a dune height of 11m AHD provide a recession due to a sea level
rise of 21m (Table 6-4).
TABLE 6.4: SUMMARY OF SHORELINE RECESSION DUE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AT 33 ROSS CRESCENT, SUNSHINE
BEACH
Assessment Profile Width Dune Height Depth of Closure Sea Level Rise 2100 Shoreline Recession
(m) (m AHD) (m AHD) (m) (m)
RHDHV (2024) 600 7 -12 0.8 25
M&N (2025) 600 7 -12 0.8 25
6.3.2. Recession due to Sea Level Rise (S)
Immediately following severe storm erosion events on sandy beaches, a near vertical erosion scarp will
form at the dune edge. Over time the erosion scarp will slump to the natural angle of repose of the sand.
Since the short-term erosion only accounts for shoreline recession due to wave runup for cases where the
foreshore is not overtopped, the Queensland Hazard Technical Guide (DEHP, 2013) recommends adding
this dune scarp component when calculating erosion width.
The dune slumping component at the end of the 100-year planning period has been determined by
combining the long-term erosion, short-term erosion and recession due to SLR which equates to 59m.
Applying the angle of repose for dune slumping (35 degrees) a dune scarp component of 10m was adopted
for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach (refer Figure 6-6, below).
6.3.3. Dune Height
The dunes along this section of coast are classified as 'high dunes'. Determining the recession caused by
sea level rise (S) necessitated identifying the erosion profile to ascertain the dune height at this specific
location. The assessment employed an iterative methodology to determine the dune height, involving an
initial calculation of S using a test dune height. Subsequently, the dune height was refined until the erosion
width intersected the profile at the same dune height utilised in the sea level rise recession calculation.
For this evaluation, a dune height of 7m was established (Figure 6-6).
25
Page 33
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-6 Dune slumping for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach
6.3.4. Summary of the Erosion Prone Area Reassessment
The erosion prone area reassessment for this site was undertaken by RHDHV (2024) in accordance with
the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) requirements with a planning period of 100
years to accommodate the asset lifespan of the proposed house. A subsequent reassessment of the
erosion prone area was undertaken in this assessment to address Noosa Shire Council’s further information
request dated 19 December 2024 by adopting a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD, approximately a 300-year
ARI event.
RHDHV (2024) calculated a site-specific erosion prone area for the site of 84m. Rounding up to the nearest
5m, the erosion-prone distance was adjusted to 85m. This assessment has found the erosion prone area
with a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD to be 85m, measured from the seaward toe of the frontal dune (2.3m
AHD). The components of the erosion prone area for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach are presented in
Table 6-5, and the spatial extents are shown in Figure 6-7.
The assessment presented above indicates that the proposed building will not be directly impacted by
erosion up to 2100. However, if the full erosion prone area is eroded the building may be located on a zone
of reduced foundation stability. The building will therefore be designed with footings extending to a level
below the zone of reduced foundation stability.
The possible erosion cut from the EPA assessment is provided in Figure 6-8. The advice of a Geotechnical
Engineer will be required to inform the design of the house to accommodate future site conditions and
implement the management measures in the Landslide Risk Management Manual (Australian
Geomechanics, 2007) where suitable.
26
Page 34
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
TABLE 6.5: REASSESSED EROSION PRONE AREA FOR 33 ROSS CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH
Erosion Prone Area Component RHDHV (2024) M&N (2025)
Long-term Erosion (N x R) 10m 10m
Short-term Erosion (C) 19m 20m
Recession due to sea level rise (S) 25m 25m
Safety Factor (F) 0.4 0.4
Dune Scarp (D) 8m 8m
Erosion Prone Area Width 84m 85m
Figure 6-7 2100 Extent of the reassessed erosion prone area
27
Page 35
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
F (22m) C(20m)
Figure 6-8 Erosion cut profile for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach
6.4. Comparison to BMT (2018) Assessment
BMT (2018) undertook the ‘Noosa Shire Council Coastal Hazards Risk, Vulnerability and Adaptation
Assessment’ on behalf of Noosa Shire Council as part of the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy. BMT
(2018) undertook a reassessment of the erosion prone area for the beach compartments within the Noosa
Shire local government area.
The variables of the erosion prone area were calculated at historical beach profiles known as ETA profile
lines. BMT (2018) calculated the erosion prone area at each ETA line and averaged the values across
multiple lines to calculate the erosion prone area for each beach compartment. For comparison to the
assessment herein the BMT (2018) assessment for the Sunshine Beach compartment and ETA 602 are
most applicable.
Table 6-6 compares key parameters used in calculating the components of the erosion prone area adopted
by BMT (2018) and this assessment. Table 6-7 compares the components and width of the erosion prone
area.
The following sections provide a detailed comparison of the parameters adopted for this study and BMT
(2018) and justification for any differences in the calculated components of the erosion prone area.
28
Page 36
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
TABLE 6.6: COMPARISON OF EROSION PRONE AREA CALCULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter M&N (2025) RHDHV (2024) BMT (2018) Assessment
Location 33 Ross Crescent 33 Ross Crescent ETA 596 ETA 602
Storm tide (m AHD) 1.79 1.74 2.20 2.20
Wave Height (m) 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Dune Height (m AHD) 7 7 4.9 4.9
Depth of closure (m AHD) -12 -12 -11.5 -11.5
Active profile Height (m) 19 19 16.9 16.9
Active beach width (m) 600 600 525 595
Median sand size D50 (mm) 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
TABLE 6.7: COMPARISON OF EROSION PRONE AREA COMPONENTS AND WIDTH
Assessment Location Long-term Short-term Recession due Dune Factor of Erosion
Recession Erosion to sea level rise Scarp safety Prone Area
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
NxR C S D F E
BMT (2018) ETA 596 10 21 26 19 23 99
ETA 602 10 52 26 13 35 136
Sunshine Beach 10 37 26 16 29 118
RHDHV (2024) 33 Ross Ct 10 19 25 8 23 84
M&N (2025) 33 Ross Ct 10 20 25 8 23 85
6.4.1. Beach Profile
Beach environments are in dynamic equilibrium with the prevailing coastal processes and sediment supply
that results in the beach profile constantly changing in response to changes in conditions.
The beach profile adopted by BMT (2018) for ETA 602 is shown in Figure 6-9 and was derived from 2016
LiDAR data combined with the Sunshine Coast Bathymetric Lidar Data (2011) for the nearshore section.
The beach profile for this assessment (refer Figure 6-8) was based on detailed site survey (refer Appendix
C) combined with the Sunshine Coast Bathymetric Lidar Data for the nearshore section. The profiles are
different and this impacts on the extent of erosion that may occur during the adopted design storm event.
29
Page 37
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-9 Beach profile and storm profile ETA 602 (BMT, 2018)
6.4.2. Depth of closure
BTM (2018) calculated the depth of closure to be around 11-12m for Noosa beaches and adopted 11.5m
for the Brunn Rule calculation. The assessment herein adopted 12m for the Brunn Rule calculation. This
small difference has a negligible effect on the Brunn Rule calculation.
6.4.3. Dune Toe
BMT (2018) determined the dune toe position by utilising the manually digitised coastline from the
Department of Resources and incorporating guidance from the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) contour.
The RHDHV (2024) and the assessment herein adopted a level of 2.3m AHD as the toe of the dune based
on site observations, detailed survey, the current vegetation line and interpretation across the creek mouth
based on the ‘Coastal Hazards Technical Guide’ (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection,
2013) (refer Section 2.4).
6.4.4. Active beach width
The active beach width represents the horizontal distance from the dune height to the depth of closure.
BMT (2018) adopted active beach widths of 525m and 595m for ETA 602 and ETA596, respectively.
The assessment herein adopted an active beach width of 600m. The variation in these measurements is
attributed to the different dune heights adopted.
6.4.5. Dune height
Figure 6-10 shows the dune heights adopted by BMT (2018) and RHDHV against the beach profile adopted
for the assessment in this report. BMT (2018) adopted 4.9m AHD which corresponds to the frontal dune
and therefore underestimates the reserve of sand available in the dune system.
RHDHV (2024) adopted a dune height of 7m AHD which was determine over an iterative process (see
Section 6.2.3). This assessment has shown the 7m AHD dune height is still appropriate with a 1.79m AHD
storm tide level.
30
Page 38
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-10 Dune heights and beach profile
6.4.6. Sediment size
BMT (2018), RHDHV (2024) and the assessment herein adopted a median sediment grain size (D50) of
0.22mm.
6.4.7. Storm Tide
BMT (2018) stated that a 100-year ARI design storm tide level (inclusive of wave setup) for Sunshine Beach
of 2.61m AHD was adopted based on a storm tide assessment by Aurecon (2013). However, when
reviewing the assessment summary provided it appears that a design storm tide level of 2.2m AHD was
used by BMT (2018) for assessment of the short-term erosion component of the erosion prone area. There
is no clear explanation provided by BMT (2018) for the different storm tide levels described in their report.
Vellinga (1983) provides an empirical method for estimating beach erosion associated with a design storm
event. The input parameters for the design storm event described in Vellinga (1983) include the deep-
water significant wave height (Hos) and storm surge. The description described in Vellinga (1983) suggests
that the storm surge is exclusive of wave setup which is implicitly included in the empirical model. Figure
6-11 shows an example hydrograph of storm surge from Vellinga (1983) indicating the surge and tide effects
and no indication of wave setup. RHDHV (2024) therefore adopted a 100-year ARI storm tide level of 1.74m
(exclusive of wave setup) from Aurecon (2013).
31
Page 39
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-11 North Sea storm surge hydrograph (Vellinga, 1983)
6.4.8. Wave Height
BMT (2018), RHDHV (2024) and the assessment herein adopted an offshore significant wave height of
6.2m based on a previous study of coastal processes on the Sunshine Coast (BMT, 2013).
6.4.9. Long-term erosion
Digital Earth Australia and CoastSat have calculated the long-term recession rates. Figure 3-9 shows that
the long-term change in shoreline position in the immediate vicinity of the site is approximately 0.4m
annually (±0.3m at 95% confidence interval).
Given the long-term stability of this section of coast a nominal 10m has been adopted in accordance with
the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013). The long-term erosion of 10m aligns with
the evaluation conducted by BMT (2018).
6.4.10. Short-term erosion
The BMT (2018) evaluation of short-term erosion was undertaken using the Vellinga method. Vellinga
(1983) presents an empirical method for estimating beach erosion associated with a designated storm
event. The required input parameters described in Vellinga (1983) involve the deep-water significant wave
height (HOS) and storm surge. The description in Vellinga (1983) implies that storm surge is distinct from
wave setup, which is implicitly encompassed in the empirical model.
BMT (2018) adopted a conservative assessment adopting a design water level of 2.11m AHD (i.e. storm
tide + wave setup). Acknowledging the inclusion of wave setup is not consistent with Vellinga (1983), they
stated, "This is considered a conservative approach since the erosion model only necessitates input of the
‘surge plus tide’ level, and the additional contribution of wave setup to the extreme water level leads to an
increase in the predicted erosion volume" (BMT, 2018). The BMT (2018) assessment also did not appear
to include the storm profile termination at a depth of 75% of the deep-water significant wave height (refer
Figure 6-1 above).
In accordance with the input parameters described in Vellinga (1983), RHDHV (2024) adopted a 100-year
ARI storm tide level of 1.74m (exclusive of wave setup). To address Noosa Shire Council’s further
information request dated 19 December 2024 this assessment adopted a storm tide level of 1.79m AHD to
reassess the erosion prone area. The minor increase in storm tide level of 0.05m has been shown to have
negligible impact on the estimated erosion profile at the site.
32
Page 40
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
In their analysis of Sunshine Beach, BMT (2018) categorized short-term erosion into C1 and C2
components when the dune toe level fell below the storm tide level. Figure 6-12 shows the conceptual
illustration of the approach adopted by BMT (2018). Specifically for Sunshine Beach (ETA 595 and ETA
602), BMT (2018) assigned a C1 value of 21m and 52m and a C2 value of 0m for short-term erosion. It is
important to highlight that BMT conducted the short-term erosion assessment from the design water level
line rather than the toe of the frontal dune, which is not consistence with the Queensland Hazard Technical
Guide (DEHP, 2013). Had BMT measured from the dune vegetation, the short-term erosion would have
been 6m (Figure 6-13) and 40m (Figure 6-14), resulting in an average C of 23m, not 37m. This 23m is
closer to the 20m calculated for this assessment. The difference of 3m is attributed to the difference in
water level.
RHDHV conducted a site-specific assessment of the short-term erosion based on Vellinga (1983). The
finalised adopted short-term erosion component was set at 27m. The site inspection and survey of the site
indicates that the toe of the frontal dune can be approximated at 2.3m AHD (refer Section 2.4). Dividing
the short-term erosion component into C1 and C2 as adopted by BMT (2018) is therefore not applicable for
this section of beach.
The main reason for the difference in short-term erosion between both studies is the design water level
used and where the short-term erosion was calculated from. Note in both studies that C2 equals zero as
the dune's toe is situated above the design water level.
Figure 6-12 BMT (2018) conceptual illustration of the erosion prone area components
33
Page 41
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Figure 6-13 ETA596 Vellinga calculation (BMT, 2018)
Figure 6-14 ETA602 Vellinga calculation (BMT, 2018)
6.4.11. Shoreline recession due to sea level rise
The Queensland Government has adopted a projected sea-level rise of 0.8m by the year 2100, based on
climate modelling for probable scenarios of world development presented in the ‘Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report’ released in 2014 (AR5) (IPCC, 2014). This correlates
to a sea level rise projection slightly above the mean for a modelling scenario with very high Greenhouse
Gas emissions (RCP8.5 scenario).
34
Page 42
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
It should be noted that the IPCC AR5 sea level rise projections are relative to 2006 mean sea level as
indicated in Figure 6-15. IPCC (2014) has estimated the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was
3.2mm annually between 1993 to 2010 which would indicate that the mean sea level has risen by
approximately 54mm between 2006 and 2023. Both the BMT (2018) and RHDHV have adopted a 0.8m
sea level rise relative to current sea level which effectively results in adoption of a higher sea level rise
projection due to the inclusion of sea level rise that has occurred to date.
Figure 6-15 Global mean sea level rise from 2006 to 2100 (IPCC, 2014)
BMT (2018) adopted a dune height of 4.9m AHD to undertake the assessment of recession due to sea level
rise based on a profile width of 525m (ETA602) and depth of closure of 11.5m. We believe that the dune
height proposed by BMT (2018) underestimates the true dune elevation along this section of beach.
Through our calculations, we've determined that the dune height in the active beach area stands at 13
meters AHD (Section 6.2.3).
BMT (2018) calculated a recession due to SLR of 26m, whereas this assessment adopted a recession due
to SLR of 25m.
6.4.12. Dune Slumping
BMT (2018) have adopted a conservative approach in their assessment of dune slumping based on:
• Calculation of the dune slumping from a scour depth of 1m below the eroded dune toe; and,
• Calculation of dune slumping based on the short-term erosion width including the factor of safety,
effectively applying the factor of safety to the dune slumping component.
A schematic of the BMT (2018) approach is presented in Figure 6-12 above.
The ‘Coastal Hazards Technical Guide’ (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013)
recommends the assessment of dune slumping from the eroded toe of the dune due to short-term erosion.
RHDHV determined the dune slumping component (D) by integrating the erosion associated with both long-
term (NxR), short-term (C) and recession due to SLR (S) factors, which currently do not account for dune
slumping in their calculations.
Therefore, RHDHV derived the dune slumping factor by adding the long-term and short-term erosion
potentials from the dune toe and applying a 35-degree angle of repose for dune slumping, based on the
depth from the design water level (Figure 6-6, above).
35
Page 43
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
BMT calculated a dune slumping factor of 16m, and RHDHV computed a factor of 8m.
6.5. Comparison summary
Comparison of the BMT (2018) and RHDHV erosion prone area assessment has identified that the primary
differences are related to the beach profiles, dune heights, storm tide levels adopted, where the short-term
erosion is measured and the method used to calculate dune slumping. The assessment undertaken by
BMT (2018) was a broader scale assessment to determine the erosion prone area at a beach compartment
level. In comparison, the assessment presented in this report is a site-specific assessment.
It is recommended that the erosion prone area assessment undertaken for this report is representative of
the current erosion vulnerability for the subject properties and is consistent with the ‘Coastal Hazards
Technical Guide’ (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013). The assessed erosion prone
area width of 85m measured from the toe of the frontal dune (refer Figure 6-7) should be adopted in relation
to the current development application related to building works within an erosion prone area and coastal
management area for 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach.
36
Page 44
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
7. Coastal Protection Works
In this instance the provision of coastal protection works (e.g. rock revetment) within the property to protect
development against coastal hazards is not considered a viable option due to the height of the land. A rock
revetment would need to be constructed at a significant depth below the existing ground level that would
result in significant earthworks and impact to surrounding dune vegetation.
To ensure the proposed house and pool can withstand future potential erosion events and not adversely
impact on coastal processes it is recommended that a piled foundation be included in the design sufficient
to withstand erosion and maintain the stability of the building for the geotechnical conditions at the site.
The piled foundation should be prepared by a geotechnical engineer considering the theoretical beach
profile associated with the erosion prone area assessment presented in this report and slope stability.
37
Page 45
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
8. Conclusion
A detailed coastal engineering assessment has been undertaken to assess the vulnerability to erosion of
the beach adjacent to 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach, Noosa Shire. The methodology adopted for this
report is based on best practice and is appropriate for risk assessment in relation to the proposed
development and the coastal hazard associated with beach erosion for the section of beach in the vicinity
of 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach. We recommend that the EPA width (85m) calculated above be
adopted for the current development assessment.
This assessment has found that the proposed house is unlikely to be impacted by subject to erosion from
the sea during the expected asset lifespan (i.e. 60 years for a residential house) based on an extreme event
described in Table 6-2.
Advice of a Geotechnical Engineer will be required to inform the foundation design of the house to
accommodate future site conditions and implement the management measures in the Landslide Risk
Management Manual (Australian Geomechanics, 2007) where suitable (refer to Figure 6-8 for the potential
erosion cut profile).
Construction of the proposed house at 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach as shown in Appendix A, with
appropriate foundation design, would therefore not adversely impact coastal processes and would not affect
the future coastal management options for this section of Sunshine Beach. The proposed development is
therefore considered to comply with Performance Outcomes 1 and 2 of the Coastal Protection and Scenic
Amenity Overlay Code (Noosa Plan 2020) as the development:
1. allows for natural fluctuations of the coast and foreshores to occur, including allowance of climate
change;
2. maintain dune crest heights and minimise and mitigate the risk to development from wave
overtopping and storm tide inundation; and,
3. maintains coastal ecosystems and natural features, to assist in protecting and buffering
communities and infrastructure from sea-level rise and coastal inundation impacts.
38
Page 46
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
9. References
Aurecon. (2013). Sunshine Coast Storm Tide Study - Storm Tide Definition. Brisbane: Aurecon.
Bishop-Taylor. R., Sagar. S., Lymburner. L., Alam. I., & Sixsmith. J. (2019) Sub-Pixel Waterline Extraction:
Characterising Accuracy and Sensitivity to Indices and Spectra. Remote Sensing. 11, 2984;
doi:10.3390/rs11242984;
BMT. (2013). Coastal Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast. Brisbane: BMT.
BMT. (2018). Noosa Shire Council Coastal Hazards Risk, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment -
Coastal Hazard Mapping Refinement. Brisbane: BMT.
Bruun, P. (1962). Sea Level Rise as a cause of shoreline recession. ASCE Journal, Waters and Harbours
Division, Vol. 188, 117-130.
Coastal Observation Programme- Engineering. (1985). Coastal Observation Programme- Engineering
(COPE), Teewah- Noosa Shire. Coastal Observation Programme- Engineering.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. (2013). Coastal Hazards Technical Guide -
Determining Coastal Hazard Areas. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.
Department of Environment and Science. (2011). Sunshine Coast Bathymetric Lidar Acquisition.
Department of Resources. (2009). Queensland LiDAR DATA- South East Queensland 2009 Project.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Maritime Safety Queensland. (2023). Queensland Tidal Planes. Retrieved from
https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Tides/Tidal-planes
Royal HaskoningDHV (2024). 33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazard Assessment
Stephens, M. J. (1896). Sand Transport at Noosa, Queensland.
Vellinga, P. (1983). Predictive computational model for beach and dune erosion during storm surges.
Vos K., Splinter K.D., Harley M.D., Simmons J.A., Turner I.L. (2019). CoastSat: a Google Earth Engine-
enabled
Python toolkit to extract shorelines from publicly available satellite imagery. Environmental
Modelling and Software. 122, 104528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104528;
39
Page 47
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Appendix A. Development Proposal
A-1
Page 48
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Appendix B. Erosion Prone Area Plans
B-2
Page 49
Erosion Prone Area
Noosa Shire Local Government Area
Erosion Prone Area Definition
1. Erosion prone areas are deemed to exist over all tidal water to the extent of Queensland Coastal Waters and on all land
adjacent to tidal water.
2. Erosion prone areas include areas subject to inundation by the highest astronomical tides (HAT) by the year 2100 or at
risk from sea erosion.
3. On land adjacent to tidal water the landward boundary of the erosion prone area shall be defined by whichever of the
following methods gives the greater erosion prone area width:
a. a line measured 40 metres landward of the plan position of the present day HAT level except where approved
revetments exist in which case the line is measured 10 metres landward of the upper seaward edge of the
revetment, irrespective of the presence of outcropping bedrock;
b. a line located by the linear distance shown on Table 1 and measured, unless specified otherwise, inland from:
i. the seaward toe of the frontal dune (the seaward toe of the frontal dune is normally approximated by the
seaward limit of terrestrial vegetation or, where this cannot be determined, the level of present day HAT); or
ii. a straight line drawn across the mouth of a waterway between the alignment of the seaward toe of the frontal
dune on either side of the mouth
c. the plan position of the level of HAT plus 0.8 m vertical elevation.
Except:
i. where the linear distance specified in 3b is less than 40 metres, in which case section 3a. does not apply and the
erosion prone area width will be the greater of 3b and 3c; or
ii. where outcropping bedrock is present and no approved revetments exist, in which case the line is defined as being
coincident with the most seaward bedrock outcrop at the plan position of present day HAT plus 0.8m; or
iii. in approved canals in which case the line of present day HAT applies, irrespective of the presence of approved
revetments or outcropping bedrock.
4. Erosion prone areas defined in accordance with the above are deemed to exist throughout all the local government
areas, irrespective of whether the entire local government area is depicted on erosion prone area plans for the area.
Notes to clarify the definition
1. The specific location along the coast to which each erosion prone area linear distance applies (a segment) is shown in
Table 1.
2. A map indicating the approximate location along the coast of each linear distance segment is attached.
3. Each erosion prone area segment is located on the coastline between 2 points defined by latitude and longitude. A
projection of each point to the nearest actual coastline and continuing inland perpendicular to the coast defines the
erosion prone area segment.
4. “Present day HAT” in the definition is always taken to be the present day level of HAT for the coastline as defined in the
Queensland Tide Tables for that year or as defined by empirical methodology at the site.
5. The extent of the erosion prone area where it is defined by “HAT plus 0.8m” is the HAT coastline at the year 2100 and
includes sea level rise to that time. It is determined by the area of land inundated to the level HAT of the nearest
adjacent open coast or river tide gauge plus 0.8m vertical elevation. Site based HAT is not to be used as present day
attenuation of inland HAT level due to flow constraints may not persist to 2100 with coastline response to sea level rise.
For further explanation see the Coastal Hazard Technical Guide.
6. Where noted on Table 1 (and the map) the specified linear distance applies except where a revetment has been
constructed and maintained to the approved design in which case the landward boundary of the erosion prone area is at
the upper seaward edge of the revetment (A-line).
7. The approximate erosion prone area footprint is shown on Coastal Hazard Area Maps available on the Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection website at www.ehp.qld.gov.au. These footprints are indicative only and the
definition in this plan prevails for any inconsistency between the two.
8. This erosion prone area plan may be updated from time to time and a new revision created. Please check with the
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection or the local government that this copy is the current version prior to
using the contained information in any way.
Date of Erosion Prone Area Declaration: 8 July 2015 Plan No:
Date of Erosion Prone Area Amendment: NOS3A
Page 50
153.1° E 153.15° E 153.2° E
26.4° S
4
N OS 0 0
0m
NOS 003
06 175m
S 0 pit
NO of s
NOS005
153.2° E
NORTH Wi
d th
60m
SHORE
153.05° E
NOS002
0m
NOOSA
HEADS SUNSHINE
BEACH
TEWANTIN
26.4° S
SUNRISE
BEACH
NOS 001
26.45° S
175m
CASTAWAYS
NOOSAVILLE BEACH
MARCUS
BEACH
26.45° S
WEYBA
DOWNS PEREGIAN
BEACH
26.5° S
NOS 001
175m
2 1
SCR0
175m
26.5° S
YANDINA COOLUM
CREEK BEACH
20 oc
k
R0 19 dr
SC m R0 B e
26.55° S
0
SC sible
s
Po
5m
17 E
NOS3A Map 1
153.05° E 153.1° 018 26.55° S 153.15° E
SCR
Erosion Prone Area Linear Distances and their Locations 0m
for Noosa Shire Local Government Area
Note: NOS006 Segment number and linear Projection: Albers. Datum: GDA 1994.
This map is a representation of the erosion prone area segment
locations provided in Table 1 and should be used as a guide only. 100m distance for erosion prone area
3
±
Erosion Prone Area segment WEIPA
Disclaimer:
Whilst every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, the start/stop location 2
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection makes no
Roads Cooroy CAIRNS
representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability,
Tewantin
.
!
TOWNSVILLE
Queensland coast
.
!
completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all
responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in
negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or Cadastral boundaries 1 MOUNT ISA ROCKHAMPTON
consequential damage) and costs which you may incur as a result of
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 NAMBOUR
the product being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any
Buderim BRISBANE
!
.
reason.
Kilometres
.
!
.
!
Page 51
33 Ross Crescent, Sunshine Beach – Coastal Hazzard Assessment | 33 Ross Crescent Family Trust
Appendix C. Site Survey by AJS Surveys
C-3
The text continues on page 52.