Council archive · source document
Development Application - Part 2 of 2 - Report & Plans · OPW11/0116
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
Very large file (13.6 MB): may take a few minutes to open.
Compared to Option D1 [see section 0], it is clear that the addition of the downstream closure resulted in a much greater
impact during the ebb tide.
Closure of the southern channel has been undertaken in the past and has proven effective at creating a sheltered lagoon
area with a stable beach foreshore that is suitable for recreational usage. Numerical modeling has confirmed that narrower
structures with lower crest levels can also be effective at reducing flow velocities along the Noosa River Spit foreshore. The
inclusion of a downstream submerged closure is a significant component in ensuring that this option is effective. This option
is particularly effective along the vulnerable sections adjacent to the existing rock wall, but tends to be less effective in
upstream areas on the flood tide.
1
urent cl eed Jm/sJ
4"'e 1 50
',0-150
3 0-100
-Q-080
i___ 070
- 850-060
II. 040-050
-835.040
: 30 - 0 35
® -030
025
litititi 5.0 20
1ir -015
II• -010
VJ-UU5
JJJJJJ^ _ -in.s 0 00
_' i J-tied value
urr rt<,ledlm!si
=1.:,:c 1 50
1 50
C-100
C-080
I-# : . C - 0 70
lu06U
(♦ a,' -0"0
II• :5-040
(♦ C-035
II• - -030
-025
II• -020
-015
-010
li• -005
JJJJJJJn 6 m 0 00
Figure 30: Results of MIKE21HD model [ebb & flood tide] for Option D2 [upstream & downstream closure]
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Development Application - Part 2 of 2 - Report & PlansRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 13.6 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.