Original source · versioned page text
2019-12-16 GC Agenda - Item 5 - Attachment 1 - Noosa Spit Shoreline Erosion Management Plan-Part 1
The original of this document is very large (18.5 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawn Noosa Spit SEMP Final Report 95
Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Options
4.3.6 Option 5: shore parallel seawall
The indicative minimum footprint for construction of a shore parallel seawall (or similar coastal
protection structure) is illustrated in Figure 4-17. This footprint is defined by a ~20 m buffer from the
HAT contour on the southern side of The Spit, noting that the actual footprint would need to be
determined as part of a concept and detailed design study. It may be possible to construct the seawall
in stages; however, this would need to be carefully planned given the restricted access for land-
based equipment.
Regarding effectiveness, a properly designed and constructed seawall is expected to reduce the risk
of a breakthrough to an acceptable level. The whole of life cost estimate for this option is $4.1M with
annualised costs around $200,000/year. This includes beach nourishment as part of the capital
costs.
This option accepts the ongoing loss of dune and terrestrial habitat to erosion and would likely cause
further losses during the construction phase.
The social values associated with Dog Beach would be gradually lost. Ongoing nourishment of the
shoreline could be used to maintain beach amenity in front of the seawall; however, the seawall
would be designed to be stable in a fully exposed condition (that is, beach nourishment would not be
required for the structure to perform as intended).
The risks to Council are generally low to medium and manageable. The exception being the relatively
large investment of public funds and the perception of benefiting a small number of private properties.
Full details of the risk assessment results are provided in Appendix D.
G:\Admin\B23636.g.mpb.NoosaSpit_SEMP\R.B23636.001.02.SEMP_final.docx
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.