Gold Coast I Queensland I Australia Coastal Erosion and Related Problems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE BEACH PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF QUEENSLAND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM EXAMINATION OF REPORT R 257 - 1970 BY DELFT HYDRAULICS LABORATORY, NETHERLANDS ENTlilED GOLD COAST I QUEENSLAND I AUSTRALIA COASTAL EROSION AND RELATED PROBLEMS Photo: GOLD COAST JUNE 1967 / I . --,:...." lUP9B·:r~.DM':-;'.l:(W::l!'! 1'1lO.T.ECTIO:il.:.-AI)i.LUc.u,y_ 50, .iU) ON DELFT REPffiT R257-1S70 ----.. A summary of the Repor t and recommendations entitled "The Delft Report on Coastal Engineering Problems on the Gold Coast - An Introd\lction" has been prepared by officers of Harbours and Marine Dep"rt::.ent for the Authori ty and accompanies this repor t. (Appendix A) The Board has reviewed the rocommenda tions o:f the I:el:ft Hydraulics Laboratory Repor t and t!1e estimated costs :for their implementation prepared by officers of Harbours and Marine I:epartment :for the Authori ty. The work proposed in the Delft Reper t can be regarded as falling into two categories, one :fundamentally concerned with structures at the mouths o:f streams, and the other wi th restoration and preservation of the beaches, although these are inter-related. Chart 1 attached indicates the priori ties and order of vKlrks in general terms. Proposals :for the stabilisation i~ ~osioion and depth o:f the entrances of Nerang River and Currc::.bl.. Creek can be regarded primarily as co~sta1 engineerir.~ projects which have an influence on the stabilisation of the beaches, whereas the rehabili tation and preserva tion o:f the beaches proper is considered to require direct nourishment with sand. It woUld seem that the two categories of work, :from their general nature, would have to be finar.c ed from'different sources. That o:f the first mentioned CQuld reasonably be regarded as mainly a government responsibility, and o:f the second, a C-02:J. Coast Ci~y ) Council responsibili ty. l<evertheless it would not lJe :fUlly realistic to regard them as separate. For example, stabilisation o:f Herang River Mouth would in turn stabilise beaches on the Spit. Consideraole overall economics will result if the initial programme includes the work in both categories. For example, the estimated CDS t of the :fir st mentioned category considered above is $M11.4, and that of the second category ~iM19.6, whereas the v,ork in both categor1es carried out 1n a single all-encompassing programme is estimated to cost ~27.9 (:for a 20 year period). -2- The Board cons~ders the Delft Repor~ to be realistic and the recommendations sound. It recognises that the works progrrunme pro posed will involve a high early capital cost and that its financing will be difficult, -but it also considers that postponement 0;: action would involve gambling wi th the future of the Gold Coast beaches, the unknown factor being the weather and sea oonditions which will be experienced in the near future. There are insufficisut his torical data available to establish statistic&l values which would enable an accUl:'ate and quantitative, evaluation cf the risks involved were a programme embodying a lesser rate of early capital expenditure embarked upon. The following quotation from the report is considered to particularly apposit~: " If the cos t of these works makes it impos sible to oarry out such large scale beach imprcvements in a short time, part of the works at least musy be done immediately although, at' COUl'aO, in that case the direct increase of' sat'e ty wi 11 be proportior.ately Jess." The programme of work proposed in the Delft Report is shown in Chart 3 attached, on which estimated costs of the work are also recorded. The major works have been PtQgrammed to be carried out over the first ten (10) years, but continued pumping to overcome long-term erosion ef'fects and for entrance by-passing, and maintenance of strUctures and dunes will be essen tial. Expenditure would be nearly $M20 in the ten year period, rial,ng to about ~M28 in a twenty year period. Of this amo~~t, restoration and msintennnee of the beaches by sand nourishment and dune stabilisation are eXj;e eted to amount to CM13.5 in the first five (5) years, *!.!15.4 in ten (10) years and $M19.6 in twenty (20) years if work essential for the restoration and maintenance of the beaches only is oarried out, but slightly le ss if both eategories are implemented. The Boa.rd ,,10hes to point Qut that -3- the boulder wall system, while giving a measure of pl>O tection to pl'vper lIy, cot1.lil nevPY" be regarded as capable of protecting the beaches in a form attractive to tourists in the event of adverse weather conditions, the rev~rse in fact being the case. The Laboratory says: " AI. though the boulder walls proved useful for temporary protection, it is not probable that they would wi thstand the Wave attack during a period of heavy cyclones. The walls do not serve for beach improvement; they even have a negative effect on the natural restoration of the beaches in front of them, due to increased turbulence as a result of the reflection of the waves against the relatively steep slopes of the walls. Eventually the walls mus t be cm ered by sand, especially because they lYere buil t on the very beaches . where severe erosion occurred in the past and may occur again. II It. l:'IoCnybS t'l1e rxrlr~".-,;:tWl.·Y·s cont.r:>ntiOJl g,!.'n):r;. in the folIowing quotation that there is no reasonable a) t.:a>native to beach nourishment, and that wi thout it, heavy damage will be encountered at some time in the future, and this could be any year, and with no prelimin ary warning. The Laboratory says: " Because of the touristic use of the beaches, s~up-o··IJi' gl'oynes at small distances will not be acceptable. Besides, such const~uctione do not influence the transverse tl>ansport, so that in this case still 0 the I' action is necessary. With a limited number of structures it takes a long time before there is sufficient accret1Gn at some distance from that Ht.ructure,.... To accelerate the increase of the ],,':£.cll width l'\G some distance from a structure, a se·",,,d one can be bull t south of the first one after some time. Obviously, much time is involved in this process, which means that no immed:.&to protection is obtained • • ~ .. o ... oo ••••••• o· •••••••••• o ................. Taking into account all these considerations, it will be clear that the most direct and 0 afest way of protection is direct placement of sand in the areas where sand is needed, Vlhi ch means almos t evenly spread along the coast." -4- RECOMMENDATIONS As the minimum requireaent for early action the Board recommends as folio VIS :- 1. THAT THB' DELFT REPORT AND THE ACTIONS RECOMiJENDBD THEREIN BB ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITY AND THAT TOO -REPORT 21TH THIS RECOllYBl;'UU.TION BE TRANSMITTBD-TO THE_GCVERNMENT. ALSQ, THAT THE RECOMMENDATION INCWDE THAT THE REPCR T BE REIEASED. 2. That immedi ate effort be made by the Authori ty. to S;O" that an ini ti al programme of IV:> rk be approved and implemented wi th a minimum of delay. These wor-ks would include the following in the category of direot beach protection: (i) The nourishment of Greenmount and adjacent beaches as recommended in the RepOl:' t and at an estimated cost of ~],j1.1 over 20 years (present day prices) - in this context, that negotiations be opened at top level for discussions with the appropriate Hew Soutl:.. Ylales authori ties to explore the means of obtaining sand for the purpose from over t~3 Border. (li) The primary nourishment of the beaches from Burleigh to the Nereng Iliver mouth wi th sufficient quanti ties to combat the long-term erosion effects until the full programme (arising out or the study ment!oned below) can be implemented, together wi th the recommended pl''Ie-reqnisj te of' construction of the inshore (groyne) i, [,l'ucture ,,"t, the northern end of the Spi'" This wor-1: :.8 "'.ltimated to cost ~)M1.5 (prel3':.j~·!~ day prices) :)\TG~" ti.·i"ee years. A study bfJ immediately ins'!;i t,uted to ascertain the feE.sible level of: expendi ture on major nourishment restoration of these beaches and a recommended programme resulting therefrom. 3. That in ~he category of: ro astal works appropriate action be taken to initiate works as recommended for the Herang River Mouth, the first steps being to arrange as a matter of: urgency :for a model study -5- to be made by the state Government, with Delft Hydraulics Laboratory as consultants, and for working plans to be prepared. 4. That the Department of Harbours and Marine be requested to arl'tL'1ge for the incorporation in future testing of Currw.bin Creek entrance model at the University of Queensland of those recommendations made on that problem in the Delft Report with a view to determining the detailed layout of the re quir ed training walls. In thi s con tex t, that the Universi ty be advised that the Delft Report is confidential until such time as Recommendation 1 above relating to release of the Repor t is realised. To view charts refer to original document. Could not be scanned as the file is size Ai APp]C,mIX A The Delft Report on Coastal Engineering Problems on The Gold Coast - An Introduction 1 • In 1964, the Co-ordinator-General's Department commissioned the Delft Hydraulics Laborat ory, Netherlands, to examine the erosion problems of the beaches of the Ci ty of Gold Coa st and to recommend a programme of investigations.