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 drawnNoosa Spit SEMP Final Report 72
Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Options
4.3 Multi-Criteria Analysis
A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) of the shortlisted options has been developed in consultation with
the PCG. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the MCA categories, weightings and scoring descriptors.
Building on the outcomes of the rapid assessment and consultation with the PCG and DES, the
following options were defined:
• Option 1a – Sand plug at either end of Dog Beach and shoreline nourishment
• Option 1b – Sand plug at the southern end of Dog Beach and shoreline nourishment
• Option 2 – Extension of the existing training wall/groyne at western end of Dog Beach
• Option 3 – Extension of submerged breakwater and two new groynes (full implementation of the
strategy proposed by Sunshine Coast Council and summarised in Section 2.4)
• Option 4 – Three new groynes at Dog Beach
• Option 5 – Shore parallel seawall
• Option 6 – Do nothing (allow Dog Beach to recede without intervention).
Discussion on the MCA category scoring and assumptions for each option is presented in the
following sections. The general approach for scoring within each MCA category is:
• Effectiveness: Option 1 (a and b) to Option 4 were assessed using The Model with impacts
quantified by comparing the ‘existing’ and ‘developed’ case scenarios. These outputs are used to
infer areas where sand deposition, erosion and morphological change may occur in response to
the option. Option 5 and Option 6 were not assessed with The Model and therefore the scoring is
based on qualitative assumptions.
• Whole of life costs (annualised) to 2040: Assumptions based on Council’s experience with
similar works at Dog Beach and other lower Noosa River locations. Industry advice from dredging
contractors has also been incorporated to the cost estimates for Option 1a and Option 1b.
• Environmental values: Qualitative assumptions based on the potential for temporary impact (i.e.
during construction) or permanent loss terrestrial and/or estuarine habitat.
• Social values: Qualitative assumptions based on the available beach and land areas available
for recreation.
• Risk: In accordance with Council’s corporate risk assessment procedure (full details 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.