2015-07-09 - Item 5.8 - Attach 4

Tully Heads and Hull Heads Seawall 4 June 2015
Renewal Project Revision: 1

Reference: 243333
Preliminary Design of Tully Heads
Seawall - Option Assessment Report
Cassowary Coast Regional Council
Tully Heads and Hull Heads
Seawall Renewal Project
Date 4 June 2015

Reference 243333
Revision 1
Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

ABN 54 005 139 873
Level 1, 242 Mulgrave Road
Cairns QLD 4870
PO Box 7625
Cairns QLD 4870
Australia
T +61 7 4019 6400
F +61 7 4051 2540
E cairns@aurecongroup.com
W aurecongroup.com
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1

Executive summary
Tully Heads Seawall Background

Tully Heads Seawall includes 2 seawalls on the southern part of Googarra Beach. The southern
seawall is named Seawall 1 and the northern seawall named Seawall 2 as shown on the locality plan
below.
A detailed condition assessment was undertaken for both walls, as presented in Aurecon’s report
“Condition Assessment Report – Tully Heads Seawall”, recommending a series of short term and long
term considerations for management of the assets.
This report is aimed at presenting long term remediation options to address the issues identified in the
aforementioned Condition Assessment report.
Seawall 1
Various options exist to protect coastal foreshores. The selection of the most appropriate option
depends on the site and environmental conditions. Five options are proposed for the protection of
Tully Heads Foreshore. Indicative costs (exclusive of GST) associated with the construction of those
options are also estimated.
 Option 1 – Rock armoured revetment

 Variant A – Toe buried underneath beach surface - approx. $4,200,000
 Variant B – Toe on existing beach surface - approx. $2,550,000
 Variant C – New rock revetment - approx. $6,620,000
 Option 2 – Geocontainer revetment - approx. $10,300,000
 Option 3 – Reinforced concrete seawall - approx. $26,100,000

A Multi Criteria Analysis has been undertaken to compare the mentioned options above. These
options are evaluated against criteria such as impact, effectiveness, social value, government process
and economics. Following this analysis, the rock revetment repair with buried toe is found to be the
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page I Page I

best suited for Seawall 1 at Tully Heads, provided that sufficient armour stone can be procured
economically. These proposed works are however subject to relevant stakeholder feedback.
Ultimate replacement/upgrade of the seawall will trigger the requirement to obtain new development
approvals to support lawful construction of the works. Notwithstanding this, any interim management
works, or works carried out prior to the ultimate replacement should be cognisant of these existing
approvals.
Seawall 2
Seawall 2 is believed to be mostly buried under the existing beach. The rocks that can be seen are
assumed to be the crest rocks. It is assumed that the rest of the seawall structure is complete under
the existing beach. Reconstructing Seawall 2 will imply large excavation and is not considered as
critical works at this time. Regular monitoring inspections are recommended to remediate any scouring
issue or crest damage, especially after storm event.
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page II Page II

Contents
Executive summary I
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Methodology 1
1.3 Assumptions and limitations 1
2 Review of existing data 2
2.1 Locality and subject site 2
2.2 Land tenure 3
2.3 Project background 4
2.4 Previous studies 4
2.5 Desktop design review 5
2.6 Site conditions 6
3 Design basis 8
3.1 Design considerations 8
3.2 Design risk 10
3.3 Design parameters 11
4 Concept design option assessment 15
4.1 Proposed concept design layout 15
4.2 Seawall 1 upgrade/reconstruction options 15
4.3 Cost estimate of options 22
5 Multi-criteria analysis 26
5.1 Analysis criteria 26
5.2 Option analysis 28
6 Conclusion 30
7 References 31
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page III Page III
Appendices
Appendix A
Document register
Appendix B
Option Assessment Drawings
Appendix C
Approved Plans of Development – existing Seawall 1 and Seawall 2
Figures
Figure 2-1 Locality plan of the existing seawalls at Tully Heads 2
Figure 2-2 Project site land tenure 3
Figure 2-3 Bathymetry in the vicinity of Tully Heads (AUS 829 chart) 7
Figure 4-1 Example of geocontainer seawall 20
Figure 4-2 Example of concrete stepped seawall 21
Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of land tenure within the Project footprint 3
Table 2-2 Tully Heads Seawall chronology 4
Table 2-3 Tidal planes at Clump Point published by Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), 2014 6
Table 3-1 Key standards used in seawall design 9
Table 3-2 Risk of encountering various ARI events in 20 and 50 year period 10
Table 3-3 Wind speed conversion from m/s to km/h and knots 11
Table 3-4 Extreme wind recurrences at Tully Heads (10 m above sea level) 11
Table 3-5 Storm tide levels at Tully Heads (including wave set-up) from JCU 12
Table 3-6 Peak inundation levels at Tully / Hull Heads from the Cardwell Inundation Study project 12
Table 3-7 Design water levels 13
Table 3-8 Earthquake parameters for Tully Heads 14
Table 4-1 Indicative material quantity associated with Option1 - Variant A 17
Table 4-2 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 1 - Variant B 18
Table 4-3 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 1 - Variant C 19
Table 4-4 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 2 20
Table 4-5 Material quantity associated with Option 3 22
Table 4-6 Assumed material rates 23
Table 4-7 Proposed contingencies 23
Table 4-8 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant A 24
Table 4-9 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant B 24
Table 4-10 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant C 24
Table 4-11 Indicative cost estimate for Option 2 25
Table 4-12 Indicative cost estimate for Option 3 25
Table 5-1 Multi-criteria analysis 29
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page IV Page IV

Acronyms and abbreviations
Abbreviation Explanation
ACH Act Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
AHD Australian Height Datum
BCA Building Code of Australia
CCRC Cassowary Coast Regional Council
CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan
CMD Coastal Management District
D50 Median grain diameter
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
DNRM Department of Natural Resources and Mines
DoE Department of the Environment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
FHA Fish Habitat Area
GPS Global Positioning System
GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
GBRMP Act Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
IDAS Integrated Development Assessment System
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis
MGA Map Grid of Australia
MHWS Mean High Water Springs
MHWN Mean High Water Neaps
MLWN Mean Low Water Neaps
MLWS Mean Low Water Springs
MSL Mean Sea Level
NDDRA Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements
NES National Environmental Significance
SEMP Shoreline Erosion Management Plan
SPA Sustainable Planning Act 2009
SP Reg Sustainable Planning Regulation
TC Tropical Cyclone
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page V Page V

Glossary
Term Definition
Wave overtopping Wave overtopping of seawalls is caused by the direct (and often violent)
impact of waves on a structure, which can result in structural damage.
More importantly, the water discharged above the structure crest
constitutes a hazard to not only the crest itself, but also to people and
infrastructure located directly behind the seawall.
Overtopping can also cause saturation of the soil profile, increasing pore
water pressure and the chance of failure from sliding, overturning or
removal of retained soil.
Sea level rise Sea level rise is defined by an increase of the mean water level due to an
increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Storm surge A storm surge is a rise in water level due to an offshore low pressure
system such as a cyclone.
Wave set-up After incoming waves break, the average level of the water inside the surf
zone to the beach is set up higher than the sea level offshore from the
breaker zone
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page VI Page VI

1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Aurecon has been commissioned by Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) to complete Stage 1
of a preliminary design required for the replacement, extension and modification of the existing
seawalls at Tully Heads and Hull Heads. Stage 1 includes the development of risk management
solutions to manage both Tully Heads and Hull Heads seawalls in their existing conditions. Moreover
Stage 1 incorporates the review of permits and approvals for both seawalls and the preparation of a
preliminary design for the Tully Heads Seawall.
Tully Heads Seawall is an erosion protection structure but is not a flood control structure. Aurecon has
issued a condition assessment report for both Hull Heads and Tully Heads Seawall including risk
management solutions and review of existing permits and approvals.
This option assessment report is part of the preliminary design phase relating to the Tully Heads
seawall. An Environmental Design Report (EDR) has been prepared concurrently for this site.
1.2 Methodology
In preparing this option assessment report for the Tully Heads seawall, it was necessary to:
 Complete a desktop review of all existing information pertaining to the Tully Heads seawalls,
including previous designs, regulatory approvals, studies and investigations
 Establish design criteria associated with the seawall design
 Undertake an option assessment of five coastal revetment options
 Carry out a multi-criteria analysis to identify a preferred option

Once relevant stakeholders have reviewed and indicated any comments on this report, a
recommended option may be selected and detailed in the recommendation report.
1.3 Assumptions and limitations

The following assumptions and limitations apply to this study:
 The review and assessment undertaken, with respect to past works, design and investigations
completed to date in relation to the Tully Heads seawalls has been limited to those documents listed
in Appendix A which were provided to Aurecon by CCRC as part of this study.
 In undertaking this assessment, Aurecon has made assumptions that the team could reasonably be
expected to make in accordance with sound professional practice.
Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 1

2 Review of existing data
2.1 Locality and subject site

The project site is situated approximately 120 km south of Cairns and 160 km north of Townsville on
the Queensland eastern coast.
Located within the Cassowary Coast Regional Council Local Government area (LGA) (former Cardwell
Shire), Tully Heads seawalls are accessed via Carron Esplanade and Taylor Street. Tully Heads
seawalls are bounded by the coastline to the east and the mouth of the Tully River to the south. The
beach along Tully Heads township is named Googarra Beach. Within the immediate area to the west
are residential properties which form the township of Tully Heads.
The seawalls of interest are located from the southern end of Taylor Street to the junction of Taylor
Street and Carron Esplanade, as shown on Figure 2-1. For the purposes of this report, the larger
seawall located to the south-east of Taylor Street has been referred to as ‘Seawall 1’ and the smaller
seawall located to the north as ‘Seawall 2’.
Figure 2-1 Locality plan of the existing seawalls at Tully Heads

2.2 Land tenure
The Project site is identified as a mixture of State reserve land and local government road reserve. A
summary of the land tenure, noting the parcels of land to which each wall section relates, is provided
in and illustrated in Figure 2-2. It should be noted that ownership details for portions of land other than
road reserve were obtained from the online database, RP Data and not through purchasing formal
Certificates of Title. As such, the information should be treated as preliminary reference only.
Table 2-1 Summary of land tenure within the Project footprint
Lot Plan Tenure Ownership/Lessee Wall Section

Carron Esplanade Local road State of Queensland (Represented by DNRM) Seawall 1 and
reserve Seawall 2
10 CWL802853 Reserve State of Queensland (Represented by DNRM) – Seawall 2
Reserve for Local Government Purposes(Camping Park
and Recreation)
Figure 2-2 Project site land tenure

2.3 Project background
Various sections of Tully Heads Seawalls have been constructed, upgraded and repaired since the
1980’s. Table 2-2 summarises a chronology which has been drawn from various reports and
information provided during the Project inception meeting with CCRC.
Table 2-2 Tully Heads Seawall chronology
Date Event Comment

Late 1980s / Main portion of Seawall 1 constructed by Constructed without relevant approvals and no
Early 1990s property owners design drawings available
Early 1990’s Investigation of Seawall 1 stability and
recommendation on upgrade works
Mid 1990’s Upgrade of Seawall 1 (Stage 1- approximately Approved under Section 86 of the Harbours Act
100 m of upgrade) 1955 on 10 December 1992, design drawings
prepared by GHD on behalf of Cardwell Shire
Council (refer Appendix F)
Late 1990’s Construction of the southern end of Seawall 1 Approved under Section 86 of the Harbours Act
1955 on 02 December 1996, design drawings
prepared by Cardwell Shire Council (refer
Appendix F)
2006 Damage to Tully Heads Seawall 1 as a result -
of Tropical Cyclone Larry in March 2006.
2006 Design and approvals of Seawall 2 Approved by EPA permit no:
IPCC004199906CV, design drawings prepared
by International Coastal Management on behalf
of Cardwell Shire Council (refer to Appendix F)
2007 Reconstruction of Seawall 1 No formal design understood to be undertaken
as part of these minor works
2009 Shoreline Environmental Management Plan -
(SEMP) developed by BMT WBM on behalf of
CCRC
February Significant damage to both seawalls occurs as Displaced rocks were pushed back on the wall
2011 a result of Tropical Cyclone Yasi, especially on by property owners.
the upper sections and at the crest.
2011 Applications submitted to gain funds from the The applications were rejected on the grounds
Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery that the seawalls do not constitute an essential
Arrangements (NDRRA) in order to restore the public asset (not seen as protecting a
seawalls to appropriate standard. community thoroughfare or esplanade).
2.4 Previous studies

2.4.1 Tully Heads seawall stability investigation –1992
GHD undertook a stability and condition assessment of the original seawall constructed by property
owners. Recommendations and cost estimates of seawall upgrades were provided.
2.4.2 Shoreline erosion management plan (SEMP) - 2009

In 2009, BMT WBM were engaged by CCRC to undertake a review of coastal processes, and the
status of erosion impacts along the Tully Heads to Hull Heads shoreline. Key management measures
were proposed to address the identified impacts to develop a Shoreline Erosion Management Plan
(SEMP) for implementation. In preparing the SEMP, BMT WBM considered the options and feasibility
of engineering works and management actions that could be carried out.

Whilst it is noted that the SEMP was prepared before the Tropical Cyclone Yasi event in 2011, the
report recommended that, in relation to the Tully Heads seawall specifically, that the northern section
of the seawall at the southern end of Taylor Street to an approved and appropriate standard of
defence. It was also recommended taking no action in front of Council reserve, which creates a pocket
beach.
2.4.3 Restoration of Tully Heads and South Mission Beach Seawalls - 2011
J T Smith and Associated Pty Ltd prepared a seawall restoration report detailing the nature and costs
of works required to reconstruct the seawalls along South Mission Beach and Tully Heads following
Tropical Cyclone Yasi. This report was compiled to assist CCRC to plan the reconstruction of the
seawalls.
2.4.4 Post-Yasi cyclone inspection - 2011

GHD undertook a seawall damage assessment following TC Yasi and inspected Tully Heads Seawalls
in April 2011. Most of the observed damage was on the crest of the seawall, where numerous rocks
were displaced onto the Esplanade and private properties. In addition, severe erosion occurred at the
crest. Remediation works were recommended to restore the seawalls. This report was prepared to
support the funding application to NDDRA which was ultimately unsuccessful in securing funding.
2.5 Desktop design review

2.5.1 Seawall 1
Tully Heads Seawall 1 was built over several decades as described in Section 2.3. The existing
seawall, as shown on the Design Drawing 16566-1 dated 17 November 1992 and drawing BP 97.01
dated 13 November 1996 (refer to Appendix C) consists of a filled rock structure, approximately 410 m
in length, with the following details:
 Armour rock mass of approximately 3t on top of existing armour (from the private owners’
construction)
 1v:2h slope
 Crest level at 3.5 m AHD and toe at approximately 0.5 m below AHD.
It is noted that the seawall was reconstructed and reshaped following storm events, in particular
following TC Larry and TC Yasi.
2.5.2 Seawall 2
Tully Heads Seawall 2 was designed and approved in 2006 as a partially buried two layer rock
seawall, approximately 160 m in length, with the following attributes:
 Primary armour rock mass of 1t to 2t
 Slope no steeper than 1v:1.5h
 Crest level at 3.7 m AHD and toe at approximately -2.36 m AHD

Similarly to Seawall 1, Seawall 2 was reshaped following TC Yasi.

2.6 Site conditions
2.6.1 Tides
Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) doesn’t provide tidal planes at Tully Heads. However tidal planes
are published at Clump Point (approximately 20km north from the site). CCRC indicated that
information on tidal variance along the Cassowary Coast is provided in the Innisfail – Mission Beach
Storm Tide Study, Final Report, June 2009, GHD. A ratio of 1.080 and 1.088 is recommended to be
applied to the Mourilyan Harbour tidal planes to determine the tidal planes at Clump Point and Tully
Heads respectively. Since the variance in ratio between Clump Point and Tully Heads is minor, the
tidal planes at Clump Point have been used as tidal reference for this assessment. Table 2-3
summarises the tidal planes at Clump Point.
Table 2-3 Tidal planes at Clump Point published by Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), 2014
Tide Level (m to AHD)

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 1.94
Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) 1.04
Mean High Water Neaps (MHWN) 0.33
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 0.05
Australian Height Datum (AHD) 0.00
Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN) -0.19
Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) -0.89
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) -1.68
2.6.2 Bathymetry
Figure 2-3 indicates an approximate bathymetry in the vicinity of Tully Heads, sourced from the marine
chart AUS 829 – Brook Islands to Russell Island. Depths are referenced to Chart Datum,
approximately Indian Spring Low Water level (which is close to LAT).

Figure 2-3 Bathymetry in the vicinity of Tully Heads (AUS 829 chart)
It is understood that no bathymetric or topographic survey is available. Ground level data surveyed
during the existing seawall condition assessment at Tully Heads will be included in the concept
design.
2.6.3 Geotechnical conditions

No geotechnical information is available at the site. Laboratory testing of beach and dune material, as
part of a geotechnical investigation, would be recommended should CCRC progress investigations to
undertake the detailed design of a complete repair/replacement of the seawall.

3 Design basis
3.1 Design considerations

3.1.1 Seawall functionality
The design of the seawall is driven by the following functional requirements:
 Protect Carron Esplanade and adjacent residential properties from shoreline erosion;
 Have reduced environmental and visual impact.

The seawall design purpose is to mitigate shoreline erosion along Carron Esplanade. It is important to
note that the seawall is not a flood control structure. During an extreme weather event, the area
behind the seawall (including Carron Esplanade and the private properties located behind) may be
inundated and damaged due to seawater flooding. It will be unsafe for pedestrian or vehicles to stand
behind the seawall at times. However, the seawall structure will protect the shoreline from ongoing
erosion threat during the design weather conditions.
The seawall is not designed to be a pedestrian access therefore is not suitable for pedestrians to
cross the structure. Warning signs, fencing, access points and other measures are recommended to
discourage the public from crossing the seawall.
3.1.2 Statutory requirements

The design work shall comply with the requirements of the following:
 Acts of the Commonwealth of Australia
 Statutory Laws and Regulations of the State of Queensland (QLD), Australia
 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011
 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, 1975
 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act)
 Relevant Commonwealth and State legislation (Acts and regulations)
 Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) Code for Prescribed Tidal Work – Schedule
4A of the Coastal Protection and Management Regulation 2003
 Relevant provisions of the Cardwell Shire Planning Scheme 2007 as called up by the Schedule 4A
code
 Consideration of any proposed new provisions under the Draft Cassowary Coast Regional Council
Planning Scheme 2014

 Any relevant provisions of the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) State Code and
State Planning Policy
 Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (FNQROC) Development Manual
 Any other authority having jurisdiction over the site
Regarding public access, there is no standard that provide requirements for pedestrian access
associated with a seawall construction. However the State Development Assessment Provisions
(SDAP) Code for Tidal Works makes reference to public access in Performance Outcome (PO) 10,
with the following conditions:
AO10.1 Development adjacent to state coastal land or tidal water:

(1) demonstrates that restrictions to public access are necessary for:
(a) the safe or secure operation of development, or
(b) the maintenance of coastal landforms and coastal habitat
(2) separates residential, tourist and retail development from tidal water with public areas or public
access facilities, or
(3) maintains existing public access (including public access infrastructure that is in the public
interest) through the site to the foreshore for:
(c) pedestrians, via access points including approved walking tracks, boardwalks and viewing
platforms, or
(d) vehicles, via access points including approved roads or tracks.
AO10.2 Development adjacent to state coastal land, including land under tidal water:
(1) is located and designed to:
(a) allow safe and unimpeded access to, over, under or around built structures located on, over
or along the foreshore
(b) ensure emergency vehicles can access the area near the development, or
(2) minimises and offsets any loss of access to and along the foreshore within two kilometres of the
existing access points, and the access is located and designed to be consistent with (1)(a) and
(b).
3.1.3 Design standards

Table 3-1 highlights the design documents and Australian Standards relevant to the Project that may
be relevant to the concept design of Tully Heads seawall.
Table 3-1 Key standards used in seawall design
Key Standards and Usage
Designation Title Typical Usage
AS 1000 The International System of Units (SI) Units to be used on the Project.
and its application
AS 1170 (Parts 0 to 4) Minimum design loads on structures General loadings including wind load and
(SAA Loading Code – Australian earthquake loads
Standard)
Load combinations
AS 4997 Guidelines for the Design of Maritime General Design Requirements
Structures
Design Loads
Load combinations

Key Standards and Usage
Designation Title Typical Usage
AS 3600 Concrete Structures Design of concrete elements

AS 4678 Earth Retaining Structures Design of soil retaining structure
AS 3962 Guidelines for Design of Marinas Design of walkways, stairway and boat ramp
AS 1657 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways Design of walkways and stairway
and ladders – Design, construction
and installation
BS 6349 (Part 1 & 7) British Standard Code of Practice for Design wave loadings
Maritime Structures
Design of revetment
CEM (2006) Coastal Engineering Manual Design of seawall and rock armour unit
(USACE)
Rock Manual (2007) The Rock Manual. The Use of Rock in Design of seawall and rock armour unit
Hydraulic Engineering (2nd Edition)
SPM (1988) Shore Protection Manual (USACE) Design of seawall and design wave criteria
Coastal Engineering Coastal Engineering Guidelines for Design of coastal structures
Guidelines for working working with the Australian coast in
with the Australian an ecologically sustainable way,
coast in an ecologically Engineers Australia, 2012
sustainable way
3.2 Design risk

According to “Coastal Engineering Guidelines for working with the Australian coast in an ecologically
sustainable way” (Engineers Australia 2012), there is approximately a 39% risk of encountering a 100
year ARI event in a 50 year period. Table 3-2 indicates the risk to encounter a 50, 100, 500 and 1,000
year ARI event in a 20 and 50 year period.
Table 3-2 Risk of encountering various ARI events in 20 and 50 year period
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) 50 year 100 year 500 year 1,000 year
Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) 2% 1% 0.2% 0.1%
Probability of encounter over 20 years 33% 18% 4% 2%
Probability of encounter over 50 years 63% 39% 10% 5%
The primary action on the seawall is wave impacts that affect:
 Structural strength, undermining and stability of the revetment
 Inundation risk due to overtopping (during extreme storms)

Changes to the surrounding environment (e.g. scour in front of and erosion at either end of the wall or
at the crest) may be ongoing over the design life of the seawall. This will involve ongoing maintenance
costs. Additional seawall and beach material may be required in the design life of the revetment.
CCRC should set a maintenance budget to carry out required repairs and monitoring investigations.

3.3 Design parameters
3.3.1 Design life and design event
According to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) building and
engineering standards for tidal works operational policy, the minimum development standard for a
seawall is a 50 year ARI design standard for a design life of 50 years.
It is proposed to follow this recommendation for the Tully Heads Seawall.
3.3.2 Design wind

Winds play a dominant role in wave generation. While the ambient wind climate at Tully Heads is mild,
high wind speeds occur when storms and cyclones are in the vicinity of the area. Wind speeds are
mainly reported in m/s in this study. Table 3-3 indicates the conversion of m/s to km/h and knots.
Table 3-3 Wind speed conversion from m/s to km/h and knots
Wind speed in m/s Wind speed in km/h Wind speed in knots

5 18 9.7
10 36 19.4
15 54 29.2
20 72 38.9
25 90 48.6
30 108 58.3
35 126 68.0
40 144 77.8
Structural design wind conditions are given in from the AS/NZS 1170.2 standard. This wind code gives
3-second wind gust measured at 10 m above ground for all Australian regions. Tully Heads lies in
Cyclonic Region C. The Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) Part II, Chapter 2, Figure II-2-1
relationship between a 3-second wind speed and an hourly averaged wind speed based on a large
sample of wind measurements 10 m above sea level was adopted to derive hourly winds. Table 3-4
presents the 3-second and hourly averaged wind speeds for a range of Average Recurrence Interval
(ARI) events for a Region C location.
Table 3-4 Extreme wind recurrences at Tully Heads (10 m above sea level)
Average Recurrence Interval 3s gust wind Hourly wind

(year) (m/s) (m/s)
1 23.0 15.5
5 33.0 22.0
10 39.0 26.0
20 45.0 30.0
50 52.0 34.7
100 56.0 37.3
200 61.0 40.7
500 66.0 44.0
1000 70.0 46.7
Those wind speeds would be used in the detailed design phase for any wave modelling and to design
structural elements affected by wind.

3.3.3 Design water levels
3.3.3.1 Sea level rise

According to the DEHP building and engineering standards for tidal works operational policy, it is
recommended allowing a minimum of 0.3m to take sea level rise into account in a seawall
development.
3.3.3.2 Storm tide level

Storm surge is an increase in water elevation due to the influence of wind shear (wind set-up) and
decreased atmospheric pressure associated with low weather systems such as tropical depressions
and cyclones. Storm tide is the combination of tide and storm surge. The extreme shoreline water
level includes both storm tide and wave set-up (due to breaking waves).
A comprehensive Monte Carlo storm tide model study was undertaken in 2004 by James Cook
University (JCU) for the Queensland East Coast region looking at the combined probability of
exceedance of storm surge and tide. This study proposed storm tide levels for extreme cyclonic events
at various locations, based on offshore cyclonic modelling. Table 3-5 indicates the extreme shoreline
water levels, inclusive of wave set-up, in the vicinity of Tully Heads for various extreme events
Average Recurrence Intervals (ARI) provided by the JCU study.
Table 3-5 Storm tide levels at Tully Heads (including wave set-up) from JCU
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI)

50 year 100 year 500 year
2004 storm tide level 2.02 m AHD 2.13 m AHD 2.66 m AHD
2064 storm tide level(*) 2.35 m AHD 2.46 m AHD 2.95 m AHD
(*) based on the 2004 JCU study - Greenhouse scenario, including 0.3m of sea level rise
In addition, BMT WBM carried out a coastal inundation investigation in 2007 during the Cardwell
Inundation Study project focusing on Tully and Hull Heads area. Table 3-6 provides peak inundation
levels for return period events greater than 100 year ARI assessed by BMT WBM.
Table 3-6 Peak inundation levels at Tully / Hull Heads from the Cardwell Inundation Study project
100 year 200 year 500 year
Peak inundation levels

2.70 m AHD 3.17 m AHD 3.79 m AHD
(including wave set-up)
By extrapolation, a 50 year ARI peak inundation level is approximately 2.25 m AHD. It is understood
that no sea level rise or climate change effects were considered in the peak inundation levels given in
Table 3-6.
The Cardwell Inundation Study levels have been derived locally and seem slightly higher than the JCU
numbers. A storm tide level of 2.25 m AHD will be taken as the 50 year ARI design storm tide level for
the project.

3.3.3.3 Design water levels
Table 3-7 displays the total water level that will be considered in the design of the seawall elements
(includes sea level rise and wave set-up).
Table 3-7 Design water levels

50 year
Storm tide level (m AHD) 2.25
Sea level rise (m) 0.3
Total water level (m AHD) 2.55
3.3.4 Design waves

Ambient waves in the region are typically short period wind-waves generated from local winds blowing
across the fetch between the Great Barrier Reef and the site. According to the Tully Heads to Hull
Heads Shoreline Erosion Management Plan (SEMP) (BMT WBM, 2009), most ambient waves come
from the ESE direction and significant wave heights are less than 1m most of the time.
Extreme offshore significant wave heights are indicated in the SEMP for events greater than 100 year
ARI events and are not available for a 50 year ARI event.
To define a significant wave height in front of the seawall that may be used to design the seawall
elements, a depth-limited wave estimate was carried out.
From the SEMP storm erosion assessment, it is noted that the beach profile would be similar prior and
post storm around -1 m AHD. Therefore the water depth at -1 m AHD (located approximately 60 – 80m
of the existing seawall) was considered in the depth-limited wave assessment. Considering a water
level at 2.55 m AHD, a 50 year ARI significant wave height is estimated at approximately 2.75 m. This
significant wave height will be considered for the concept design phase. However it is recommended
undertaking wave modelling to support the determination of design waves for the detailed design
phase of the project.
Approximate peak period for a 50 year RI event would be in the range of 5 s to 7 s and this would
need to be confirmed during the wave modelling in the detailed design phase.
3.3.5 Design overtopping

There is no specific standard provision for overtopping rate for seawalls as these structures are not
designed to mitigate both erosion and flooding.
When constructing erosion protection revetments, the averaged overtopping discharges generally
dictate the revetment crest levels. Average overtopping rates may be assessed with the Eurotop
(2008) “Overtopping Manual”, the Coastal Engineering Manual and the online Overtopping Neural
Network (Deltares). Average overtopping rates acceptable to prevent damage to paved surface behind
a seawall are generally lower than 200 L/s/m. Yet those overtopping rates along the revetment crest
would be unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles. It is also important to note that individual wave
overtopping flows may be up to 100 times larger than the average overtopping rate. Moreover it is
noted that overtopping estimates are only used to provide an order of magnitude estimates and are
not precise estimates. If accurate estimates are required, site specific physical modelling is needed.

3.3.6 Long term beach erosion
Tully Heads to Hull Heads Shoreline Erosion Management Plan (SEMP), 2007, states that the area
has experienced periods of considerable erosion but that were followed by periods of accretion. This
document also mentions that there is no evidence that the coastal system has experienced persistent
sediment volume losses or progressive erosion.
3.3.7 Longshore sediment transport

The SEMP reported that the total annual longshore sand transport potential along Googarra Beach is
in the order of 25,000 and 30,000 m 3 per year. The net sediment transport is small and on average
northwards. However the magnitude and direction of the net longshore sediment transport is not
constant through the year. In addition, cyclonic events may have a significant influence on the
magnitude of the net longshore sediment transport.
3.3.8 Sediment characterisation

From a visual assessment of beach material, it is noted that well sorted (uniform grain sizes) medium
sand (approx. D50 350 – 500 μm) is characteristic of Googarra Beach in front of Tully Heads existing
seawall.
3.3.9 Design scour level

According to the DEHP building and engineering standards for tidal works operational policy, the toe
of the seawall must be designed to accommodate potential long term erosion for at least 50 years and
the toe of the seawall needs to be located, as a minimum, at or lower than LAT.
Since the SEMP didn’t report any long term erosion trend, it is proposed to design the toe of the
seawall at LAT and to include a collapsible toe in front of the seawall. Maintenance might be required
over the life of the seawall to mitigate any scour that may appear overtime.
3.3.10 Tidal currents

No data is available regarding tidal currents in the area however it is not anticipated that tidal effects
will be significant. In addition, the seawall elements (i.e. rock, concrete unit, geotextile bags etc)
dimension will most likely be greater than what would be required to withstand tidal effects.
3.3.11 Density of seawater

The density of seawater will be adopted as 1026 kg/m 3 (as per AS 4997).
3.3.12 Seismic condition

According to AS 1170.0-2002 and AS1170.4-2007, the earthquake return period of 500 years (1/500)
shall be applied for a marine structure with an importance level of 2 and a design life of 50 years.
Table 3-8 summarises earthquake parameters at the site assumed for the design.
Table 3-8 Earthquake parameters for Tully Heads
Earthquake Parameters (in general accordance with AS1170.0-2002 and AS1170.4-2007)

Annual probability of exceedance 1/500
Hazard Coefficient 0.07
Structural Importance factor 2
Ductility factor 1
Structural performance factor 0.77

4 Concept design option
assessment
4.1 Proposed concept design layout

In 2009, the SEMP recommended upgrading the northern section of Tully Heads existing seawall
(seawall 1) but that no action is taken in front of Council’s Reserve, indicating that a pocket beach
would create between the two seawalls. It is proposed to follow the SEMP recommendation in this
concept design phase. The proposed works extent is presented in Drawing LA-002 in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Seawall 1
Seawall 1 is approximately 400m long and has been damaged during past severe storm events. It is
proposed to upgrade or replace Seawall 1. Conceptual options for this work are presented in the
following sections.
4.1.2 Seawall 2
Seawall 2 is believed to be mostly buried under the existing beach. The rocks that can be seen are
assumed to be the crest rocks. Those crest rocks have been displaced following storm and cyclone
events. It is proposed to relocate those rocks in an orderly manner and to add large 6,000kg rocks as
well to increase the crest stability. However it is assumed that the rest of the seawall structure is
complete under the existing beach. Therefore no other works is considered in this option assessment
report regarding Seawall 2. Reconstructing Seawall 2 will imply large excavation and is not considered
as critical works. Regular monitoring inspections are recommended to remediate any scouring issue or
crest damage, especially after storm event.
4.2 Seawall 1 upgrade/reconstruction options

Various options exist to protect coastal foreshores. The selection of the most appropriate option
depends on the site and environmental conditions. Five options are proposed for the protection of
Tully Heads Foreshore.
 Option 1 – Rock armoured revetment

 Variant A – Toe buried underneath beach surface
 Variant B – Toe on existing beach surface
 Variant C – New rock revetment
 Option 2 – Geocontainer revetment
 Option 3 – Reinforced concrete seawall

Other options such as irregular and regular concrete blocks, Seabees, masonry seawall, terraced
concrete blocks, timber and steel sheetpiles are other revetment options that have not be looked into
as they are not considered suitable for the site.
The following assumptions were made in the option assessment and material quantity estimate
described in the following sections:
 No detailed survey was undertaken to obtain the dimensions of the existing seawall, therefore the
actual volume of material required may increase once the detailed design and a survey is carried
out.
 It is assumed that the toe of the existing seawall is buried
 No geotechnical information was available at the time of writing. A detailed geotechnical

investigation will be required to confirm the selected option feasibility and details.
 The concept design options are designed to a 50 year ARI event and would be damaged in severe
weather events that would be similar to TC Yasi.
 The seawall is not intended for pedestrian access. However consideration should be given to
inclusion of a Building Code of Australia (BCA) compliant public access stair to provide a safe
access to the beach, or alternate means of deterring unauthorised access on the wall. Such
measures have been excluded from the quantity estimate but a unit cost has been included in the
contingency table.
 Warning signs, fencing and other public safety features have not been detailed in this assessment
but are recommended to be implemented in the detailed design phase
 Regular monitoring and maintenance is critical with any type of coastal protection revetment
4.2.1 Option 1 - Rock revetment

A conventional double layer rock armour seawall is generally the most economical and robust solution
if an appropriate rock quarry, able to produce the required rock sizes, is available near the site.
Advantages of a rock revetment include:
 High degree of coastal protection
 Durable structure with little maintenance
 Adaptable revetment to beach erosion and sea level rise
 Relatively cost-effective if material is available
 Easily repaired, if damaged during a storm event
 Reduced overtopping due to porosity of the slope
Disadvantages of a rock structure include:
 Potential community concerns over visual amenity (although as the existing seawall is a rock
structure, this may be minimal)
 Reduction of beach or foreshore space – a sloping wall reduces foreshore space
 Beach access restricted to stairways – the top of seawall should be fenced off for safety reasons
 Additional environmental impacts relating to rock quarry

4.2.1.1 Variant A - Rock revetment repair with buried toe
This option consists of reusing the existing rock armour as secondary armour and adding a primary
layer of armour rock on a 1v:1.5h slope with a buried toe. A cross-section is presented on Drawing LA-
003 in Appendix B.
Structure shape
The existing rock armour shall be shaped to form a layer of at least 1m thick. Any gaps in the armour
shall be filled. A minimum 2.1 m thick armour layer of rocks of M50=3,000 kg shall be installed once the
layer of existing rocks is shaped.
To limit average overtopping rates lower than 200 L/s/m in the design event for a 50 year period, a
crest at 4m AHD is suitable. This is approximately 0.5 m higher than the existing foreshore level. It is
understood that Tully Heads community desires keeping the visual aspect of the current foreshore. A
crest at 3.5m AHD would be suitable for current climatic conditions but would eventually have to be
raised when sea level rises. It is proposed to increase the seawall height at a later date, therefore
keeping the current visual amenity at this stage.
The toe of the rock revetment shall be buried to LAT to mitigate scour issues. This assumes that the
existing seawall is also buried. This will have to be confirmed from a survey carried out to identify any
buried material at the site. Secondary armour rocks of M50=300 kg will have to be added to construct
the toe. The seawall toe will require monitoring and additional stones may be required to maintain the
seawall if and when scour develops.
Quantity estimate
Table 4-1 presents an indicative quantity estimate of material associated with this option.
Table 4-1 Indicative material quantity associated with Option1 - Variant A
Material type Unit Approximate quantity

Excavation/backfill m3 4,500
Primary and crest armour t 25,000
Secondary armour (toe) t 3,000
This quantity estimate excludes any additional material that may be required to repair and reshape the
existing rock layer.
Conclusion
The main advantages of the rock revetment upgrade with buried toe are:
 Scour mitigation
 No demolition of the existing seawall

The principal disadvantages associated with this option are:
 Reuse of existing material (potentially of lower quality)
 Geotextile layer presence unknown
4.2.1.2 Variant B - Rock revetment repair with toe on existing surface

This option is similar to Variant A and reuses the existing rock armour as secondary armour. An
additional primary rock armour layer is added and the toe is formed on the existing beach. A cross-
section is presented on Drawing LA-003 in Appendix B.

Structure shape
The existing rock armour shall be shaped to form a layer of at least 1 m thick. Any gaps in the armour
shall be filled. A minimum 2.1 m thick armour layer of rocks of M50=3,000 kg shall be installed once the
layer of existing rocks is shaped.
The toe of the rock revetment of this option shall be placed on the existing beach surface. Such a toe
may be subject to scour during larger wave events. The rocks placed on the seabed act as a sacrificial
apron but regular monitoring would be required to investigate any scouring issues. This toe shape
triggers a loss of beach space for recreational use.
Quantity estimate
Table 4-2 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 1 - Variant B

Secondary armour (toe) t 3,000
This quantity estimate excludes any additional material that may be required to repair and reshape the
existing rock layer.
Conclusion
The main advantages of the rock revetment upgrade with a toe on the existing surface are:
 Limited excavation
 No demolition of the existing seawall

 Reuse of existing material (potentially of lower quality)
 Geotextile layer presence unknown
 Potential scour issues and increase in monitoring exercises
 Loss of beach area
4.2.1.3 Variant C – Total rock revetment reconstruction

This option consists of demolishing the existing seawall and constructing a new seawall with new rock
material and a geotextile layer. A cross-section is presented on Drawing LA-003 in Appendix B.
Structure shape
The existing rock armour shall be demolished and a new profile of 1v:1.5h prepared. A geotextile
equivalent to 600R Elcomax geotextile shall be laid on the shaped profile. A secondary layer of
M50=300kg rock and a primary layer of rocks of M50=3,000kg shall be placed on the geotextile layer.

The toe of the rock revetment shall be buried to LAT to mitigate scour issues. The seawall toe will still
require monitoring and additional stones may be required to maintain the seawall if and when scour
develops.
Quantity estimate
Table 4-3 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 1 - Variant C

Secondary armour t 11,500
Geotextile m2 7,500
Conclusion
The main advantages of the total rock revetment reconstruction are:
 Complete reconstruction of the seawall to current design standards
 Demolition of the existing structure
4.2.2 Option 2 - Sand filled geotextile bags

An alternative sloping seawall option to the rock armoured seawall is a wall comprised of geocontainer
sandbags. This option consists of demolishing the existing seawall and constructing a new seawall
consisting of geocontainers (e.g. Elcorock) with the toe of the seawall being buried in the existing
seabed level. A cross-section is presented on Drawing LA-004 in Appendix B.
A geocontainer seawall can be used in less severe wave climates with design wave heights typically
less than 2m. The design wave height criterion is greater than 2m at the site. However, compared to
other options, the geocontainer wall provides better visual amenity and improved beach access as the
community can walk down and over the geocontainers.
The geocontainer seawall advantages include:
 Relatively cost-effective, particularly if the sand is sourced from local beaches
 Beach access friendly – the smooth, sloping wall would not require hand railing and may enable
direct access to the beach
 Adaptable to beach erosion and sea level rise
 Limited trucking requirement if the sand can be sourced from the local beach(es)
 Re-useable construction material, except geocontainers

The geocontainer seawall disadvantages include:

 Durability – bags with constant UV exposure can typically deteriorate within 20 years, and would not
meet the design life of 50 years
 Reduction of beach or foreshore space – sloping wall reduces flat foreshore space
 Vandalism potential – cutting of bags by vandals
 Reduced erosion protection compared to the rock revetment in higher wave climate
 Less repairable as compared to rock revetment
 Higher overtopping due to smooth surface and less porosity
Figure 4-1 Example of geocontainer seawall
4.2.2.1 Structure shape

The geocontainer seawall design would require a double layer of 2.5 m3 geocontainer bags to
withstand the design wave with minimal damage. A slope of 1v:1.5h is proposed and a geotextile layer
would be required between the sloped profile and the geocontainer bags. A reinforced concrete wave
deflector structure is proposed at the crest, to mitigate overtopping damage to the seawall crest. This
structure would reduce the risk of overtopping failure and associated erosion immediately behind the
seawall.
The toe of the wall shall be buried to LAT to mitigate scour issues. The seawall toe will require
monitoring and additional material may be required to maintain the seawall if and when scour
develops.
4.2.2.2 Quantity estimate

Table 4-4 Indicative material quantity associated with Option 2

3
Excavation/backfill m 15,000
Geocontainers unit 4,100
Geotextile m2 9,200
Reinforced concrete m3 1,000
4.2.2.3 Conclusion
The main advantages of the geocontainer seawall are:

 Visually and pedestrian friendly
 Easily removed (bags can be cut open and the sand distributed on the beach)
 Not appropriate for higher wave climate – containers will have to be replaced during the seawall
design life
 Not as robust as a rock structure
4.2.3 Option 3 - Reinforced concrete stepped seawall

This option consists of demolishing the existing rock structure and constructing a concrete stepped
seawall along Tully Heads foreshore. A cross-section is presented on Drawing LA-004 in Appendix B.
The advantages of this type of revetment include:
 High degree of coastal protection
 Low maintenance
 Less quantity of material required for construction
 Re-usable construction material (after processing)
The disadvantages of this type of revetment include:
 Reflection of large portion of the wave energy due to low porosity of the structure which may cause
reduction in beach amenity
 More expensive as compared to rock armoured revetment
 Beach access restricted to stairways - the top of seawall should be fenced off for safety reasons
 More difficult to repair as compared to rock revetment, if damage occurs during a storm event
 Stability of this type of construction is sensitive to toe erosion (toe sheetpiling may be required for
Tully Heads site conditions)
Figure 4-2 Example of concrete stepped seawall
4.2.3.1 Structure shape

The seawall is a stepped gravity earth retaining structure which is attached to a precast toe. The upper
stepped portion of the cross-section is cast in-situ reinforced concrete. Typically the seawall has

380mm rises to 710mm goings. Engineered fill and moisture barrier would be required to support the
seawall.
Heavy overtopping can cause the seawall rear side to scour and the backfill to lose resistance. A layer
of rocks is proposed to be installed behind the seawall crest. This rock layer will assist in maintaining
the soil at the back of the seawall and will mitigate any piping or scouring issue that may occur at the
back of the seawall crest due to potential seawater inundation. The concrete stepped seawall can be
raised in the future, if sea level rises and seawater inundation becomes permanent. An additional
reinforced concrete barrier can be cast on top of the existing crest and tied in using stainless steel
bars. This would require some preparation to the existing concrete surface and include core drilling
and chemical anchoring to set the stainless bars into place.
It is proposed to construct the toe of the seawall at LAT. The toe will consist of precast concrete units
and large rocks that will mitigate any potential scouring issue that may occur. Monitoring should still be
implemented to identify any scour issues that may occur.
4.2.3.2 Quantity estimate

Table 4-5 Material quantity associated with Option 3

Reinforced concrete t 6,500
Moisture barrier m2 4,000
Armour rock t 6,500
4.2.3.3 Conclusion
The main advantages of the concrete stepped seawall are:
 Wave reflection
4.3 Cost estimate of options

The following assumptions were made in the cost estimate
 Estimate is preliminary only, and requires confirmation from Council’s preferred suppliers.
 Detailed site survey (including buried material) and geotechnical investigation would also be
required to confirm estimated quantities.
 Assumed rates are assumed to be supply/install but are exclusive of GST
4.3.1 Assumed rates

Table 4-6 indicates the units rates assumed for the materials.

Table 4-6 Assumed material rates
Material type Unit Assumed rates

Excavation/backfill m3 $50
Crest and primary armour t $70
Secondary armour t $65
Reinforced concrete m3 $2,000
Geotextile m2 $35
Geocontainers (Vandal deterrent) unit $600
Moisture barrier m2 $60
4.3.2 Contingencies
Table 4-7 indicates contingencies proposed for the project.
Table 4-7 Proposed contingencies
Contingency and fees Typical range Proposed value

Contractor overheads [+5%, +30%], +15%
Contractor mobilisation and demobilisation [$30,000-$150,000] $100,000
Quarry risk (applicable to quarry material only) [0, +100%] +30%
Weather and program risk [0, +100%] +5%
Geotechnical risk (Acid Sulphate Soil, loose [0, +30%] +10%
material)
Escalation during detailed design (*) [-30% to +30%] +10%
Engineering, procurement, construction [+5%, +15%] +10%
management
Furniture / railing [$2,000, $10,000] $7,000
Pedestrian access stairs [$10,000, $40,000] $20,000
Tree clearing [$30,000, $60,000] $50,000
Re-vegetation [$20,000, $100,000] $50,000
Fees and surveys N/A $50,000
(*) Detailed design escalation covers features which may become required during the consultation and
detailed design process.
A risk assessment is recommended to be developed at the onset of the detailed design phase to
reduce the range of uncertainties on these contingencies.

4.3.3 Indicative cost breakdown
Table 4-8 to Table 4-12 present an indicative cost estimate for each proposed options.
4.3.3.1 Option 1 - Variant A - Rock revetment repair with buried toe

Table 4-8 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant A
Material Unit Cost

Excavation/backfill m3 $250,000
Crest and primary armour t $1,750,000
Secondary armour t $200,000
Fees and contingencies N/A $2,000,000
(Table 4-7)
Total $4,200,000
4.3.3.2 Option 1 - Variant B - Rock revetment repair with toe on existing surface
Table 4-9 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant B
Material Unit Cost

(Table 4-7)
Total $2,550,000
4.3.3.3 Option 1 – Variant C – Total rock revetment reconstruction

Table 4-10 Indicative cost estimate for Option 1 – Variant C
Material Unit Cost

Geotextile m2 $270,000
(Table 4-7)
Total $6,620,000

4.3.3.4 Option 2 - Sand filled geotextile bags
Table 4-11 Indicative cost estimate for Option 2
Material Unit Cost

Geocontainers unit $2,500,000
Reinforced concrete m3 $2,000,000
Geotextile m2 $350,000
(Table 4-7)
Total $10,300,000
4.3.3.5 Option 3 - Reinforced concrete stepped seawall

Table 4-12 Indicative cost estimate for Option 3
Material Unit Cost

Reinforced concrete m3 $13,000,000
Moisture barrier m2 $150,000
Armour rock t $450,000
(Table 4-7)
Total $26,100,000
Important note regarding cost estimates

The above opinions of cost have been prepared by Aurecon at the request of Council, solely for use in
connection with the Tully Heads Seawall Condition Assessment project. Aurecon does not accept any
legal liability or responsibility in respect of the use of this opinion of cost for any purpose other than the
purpose defined above. Aurecon has exercised due skill, care and attention in preparing the opinion of
cost. Since Aurecon has no control over the cost of labour, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others, or over contractors’ methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market
conditions, any opinion of costs is made on the basis of Aurecon's experience and qualifications and
represents its best judgement as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the
construction industry; but Aurecon cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual
construction cost will not vary from Aurecon’s opinion of cost

5 Multi-criteria analysis
A Multi Criteria Analysis has been undertaken to compare a range of options plausible to mitigate the
erosion problem at Tully Heads.
Multi Criteria Analysis is a tool that can be used for complex problems where multiple criteria need to
be assessed in the process of making decisions about proposals for future action. Multi Criteria
Assessments (MCAs) attempt to incorporate all criteria simultaneously within the analysis, to arrive at
a single conclusion or ranking. As such, those assessments can consider a range of complex issues,
impacts and opportunities and can therefore be applied to more complex situations than a Cost
Benefit Analysis. For these reasons, an MCA process is used to inform the selection of a preferred
seawall option at Tully Heads.
5.1 Analysis criteria

The seawall options are assessed on the following themes: impact, effectiveness, social value,
government process and economics. The following sections outline factors taken into consideration for
each theme.
5.1.1 Impact
The impact or influence of a proposed option is a key consideration and generally relates to the
degree to which an option may change conditions from the status quo (perceived or otherwise
defined). Impacts can occur to the environment and to the community.
 Marine biodiversity – the degree to which the option may impact marine biodiversity at Tully
Heads, considering the benthic species associated with the beach, intertidal flats and the sub-tidal
areas
 Beach/dune biodiversity – the degree to which the option may impact beach and dune
biodiversity (those areas typically above high tide mark), considering suitability to promote dune
vegetation (re-vegetation) and the opportunity for re-colonisation by dune animal species
 Environmental impacts beyond Carron Esplanade – the impact of the option on areas farther
afield, including the impact on materials source areas, and up/down coast impacts due to changes
in sand supply or generation of plumes etc.
 Construction impact – in relative terms, the area directly affected by the proposed option, both in
terms of option footprint as well as construction impacts for the materials sourcing areas. This
criteria may also capture issues relating to the degree to which construction works may interfere
with beach use
 Construction timing – the time and flexibility taken to undertake construction (i.e. the degree to
which external influences may restrict the timing of works)

 Non-beach users – the degree to which the option may impact on non-beach users within the
community. For example, nourishment options that use quarried sand may impact non-beach
users by way of increased truck traffic on local roads
5.1.2 Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the option to address the erosion problem is assessed via a range of criteria.
Consideration is given to both the upside (addressing the problem) and downside risks (failure
consequence) of each option as well as to specific uncertainties.
 Longevity of design – consideration of design life under typical conditions
 Incident wave problem – degree to which a solution directly attenuates incident waves, creating
a reduced wave energy condition at the beach
 Sand budget imbalance – degree to which a solution ameliorates the recognized imbalance
between longshore supply and storm sediment transport
 Shoreline recession – degree to which a solution reduces or eliminates beach recession
 Failure consequence – the downside risk of failure of the proposed option, perhaps due to
exposure to conditions beyond design criteria, where consequences could include potential loss of
life or damage to public/private property and/or infrastructure
 Technology challenges – measure of the uncertainty associated with proven versus new
technology, and considers options proven/suitable for conditions at Tully Heads through to new
technology unproven along the Cassowary Coast
 Integration/compatibility with existing – measure of the difficulty to integrate the proposed
option with the existing infrastructure
 Adaptation to short term cyclic variations – degree to which the option can accommodate
short term (seasonal, storm) cycles in sand supply, wave climate, water levels
 Adaptation to long term changes – degree to which the option can accommodate long term
(annual, climate change, ENSO) cycles in sand supply, wave climate, water levels
5.1.3 Social value/community expectations

The local and extended community of beach users have expectations about Googarra Beach. An
important measure of the appropriateness of the proposed solution option is the degree to which the
values held by the community can be preserved.
 Visual amenity – degree to which the option meets with the community’s expectation of what
Googarra Beach should look like, and/or the degree to which an option may detract from such
expectations about the beach. It is understood that Tully Heads residents wish to protect the
visual amenity and may be resistant to a higher wall.
 Beach safety – issues such as safe access to the beach, safe beach user area, safe swimming,
or safe use of recreational water craft
 Sense of place – degree to which the option may alter the sense of place, or community
connectedness to Googarra Beach
 Suitability of materials – degree to which the community may accept proposed materials,
recognizing the materials’ adaptability for use (or not) for stairs, walkways, informal seating and an
assessment of other material specific issues including user-friendliness, colonization of pests,
litter, maintenance and odour

5.1.4 Government processes
This theme considers the governmental process challenges associated with each option.
 Roles and responsibilities – degree to which various local, state and federal government roles
and responsibilities are clearly defined, and one end of the scale requiring significant effort to
resolve (perhaps outside the existing policy scope) to being clearly set out within existing
arrangements
 Compliance with Coastal Protection and Management Act (CPMA) and Marine Park Act
(MPA) – as a guiding principal, the CPMA and MPA is a crucial reference for proposed actions at
Googarra Beach. This measure captures the degree to which the option is consistent with the
CPMA and MPA policies and objectives
 Approvals process – considers the requirements of approving the proposed option, whether
secured via existing well understood pathways or requiring significant additional levels of approval
not typical of “business as usual”
5.1.5 Economics
Cost is a major factor in any infrastructure project. Once completed, the seawall will become part of
the Cassowary Coast Regional Council portfolio of coastal assets and accordingly, capital cost is not
the only consideration.
 Capital Cost – in relative dollar terms the up-front cost of the option, including material costs, site
construction activities, and any environmental (or other) monitoring linked to the option
 Maintenance Cost – the cost of periodic routine maintenance
 Lifecycle cost – the total cost of the asset each year, over its design life
5.2 Option analysis

Table 5-1 summarises the findings of a MCA, prepared as a desktop level. It is important to consider
that this is not a final assessment and is subject to feedback from relevant stakeholders.
Colour coded cells have been included for each criterion and for each option. A green cell indicates a
low impact, an orange cell shows a medium impact and a red cell means the option triggers a high
impact.
The geotextile seawall would require more intervention year on year than most other seawall types. A
reinforced concrete stepped seawall is typically expensive to build and difficult to repair.
The rock revetment repair with buried toe is best suited for Seawall 1 at Tully Heads, provided that
sufficient armour stone can be procured economically. It is recommended to investigate local quarries
to confirm what armour stones can be provided locally and economically.

Table 5-1 Multi-criteria analysis

6 Conclusion
Various options were assessed to upgrade/replace Seawall 1 at Tully Heads. It is proposed to

upgrade Seawall 1 by adding a primary rock armour layer and burying the revetment toe under the
existing beach surface. Repairs of the crest of Seawall 2 are also proposed. This however is subject to
relevant stakeholder feedback.
Both Seawall 1 and Seawall 2 are mitigating the shoreline erosion along Tully Heads foreshore
however they are not flood control structures. Overtopping may occur behind the seawall crest. In
addition, the seawalls are not pedestrian accesses to the beach. A BCA compliant pedestrian access
stair should be considered as part of detailed design, or an alternate system implemented to deter
unauthorised access across the wall.
Detailed geotechnical investigations and site survey (including buried material) are required to confirm
the concept option assessment details.
Detailed design, development approval consultations, project management, selection of an
appropriate contract for construction, contractor engagement and on-going construction management
are recommended to detail the cost estimates further and to provide control on future cost changes.
Physical model testing is recommended during the detailed design phase to optimise the seawall
structure and reduce capital costs.

7 References
1. Australian/New Zealand wind load standard AS/NZS 1170.2:2011

2. BMT WBM (2009) Tully Heads to Hull Heads Shoreline Erosion Management Plan – Final
Report
3. CIRIA (2007) The Rock Manual – The use of rock in hydraulic engineering
4. Coastal Engineering Guidelines for working with the Australian coast in an ecologically
sustainable way, Engineers Australia, May 2012
5. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Operational Policies for Coastal
Development
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/operational_policies.html
6. Building and engineering standards for tidal works, DEHP, 2013
7. GHD (1992) Tully Heads Seawall, Report on Stability of Seawall

8. GHD (2011) Post Yasi Cyclone Inspections, Tully Heads Rock Seawall (portion of the report)
9. JT Smith and Associates Pty Ltd (2011) Restoration of seawalls and other works, South
Mission Beach and Tully Heads
10. Hardy T, Mason L, Astorquia A, Queensland Climate Change and Community Vulnerability to
Tropical Cyclones: Ocean Hazards Assessment Stage 3 – The Frequency of Surge Plus Tide
During Tropical Cyclones for Selected Open Coast Locations Along the Queensland East
Coast. Marine Modelling Unit, School of Engineering, James Cook University, August 2004
11. Overtopping Neural Network online calculator
http://www.deltares.nl/en/software/630304/overtopping-neural-network
12. Maritime Safety Queensland (2014) Tidal planes [online] www.msq.qld.gov.au/Tides/Tidal-

datam-information.aspx
13. Tully Heads Original Design Drawings
14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Coastal Engineering Manual – Part II, Chapter 2
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Coastal Engineering Manual – Part VI, Chapter 5
16. Wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures: assessment manual, 2007,
EurOtop

Appendices
Appendix A
Document register
Title Description Prepared by Date
1992 Upgrade of Seawall 1
s.86 Harbours Act – Correspondence from the Beach Beach Protection 20.11.1992
Beach Protection Protection Authority to Cardwell Shire Authority
Authority Assessment Council stating no objection letter to
proposed upgrade of 370 m rock wall at
Tully Heads.
s.86 Harbours Act Correspondence from Queensland Queensland 10.12.1992
Transport to Cardwell Shire Council Transport
granting sanction – Tully Heads Rock Wall
– Stages 1 and 2 (Ref 2-19-3396T)
Drawing 16566-1 (in 4 Tully Heads Seawall, Seawall Plan and GHD 1992
prints) Details
s.47 Approval of Rock Correspondence from the Beach Beach Protection 11.01.1993
Seawall at Tully Protection Authority to Cardwell Shire Authority
Heads Council granting a s.47 approval.
1996 Revetment Wall Extension (16 m) Seawall 2
Extension of Correspondence from the Queensland Queensland 2.12.1996
Revetment Wall at Department of Environment – Sanction Department of
Tully Heads under s.86 of the Harbours Act – 16 m Environment
Revetment Wall Extension
Drawing BP97.01 Tully Heads Seawall Extension South End Cardwell Shire 1996
at Taylor Street, Site Plan and Details Council
2006 Construction of Seawall 2
Decision Notice Approval in Full with Conditions – Cardwell Shire 15.12.2006
Prescribed Tidal Works (Installation of a Council
Rock Wall) Taylor Street, Tully Heads
(Reserve) Lot 10 on CWL802853
Concurrence Agency Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental 30.10.2006
Response Cardwell Shire Council – Concurrence Protection Agency
Agency Response – Granted in full with (ecoaccess)
conditions
Plan 3811 Cross-Section Adjacent to Pocket Beach International 2006
(Lot 9 T9483) Coastal
Management (ICM)
Drawing TH-A3-01 Location and Site Plan ICM 2006
Drawing TH-A3-02 Plan ICM 2006
Drawing TH-A3-03 X-Section ICM 2006
- Cardwell Shire Council – Prescribed Tidal Cardwell Shire -
Works – Application File 146/06 Council
IDAS Forms and Design Drawings
- Correspondence from International Coastal ICM March
Management (ICM) to the Department of 2006
Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM)
April 2006
requesting resource consent
Project 243333 File Appendix A - Document Register.docx 24 October 2014 Revision 1 Page 1
Title Description Prepared by Date
Correspondence from International Coastal ICM November
Management (ICM) to the Environmental 2004
Protection Agency (EPA) submitting
application for assessment – extension of
existing rock wall at Tully Heads
Officer Report DA 146/06 Report Number W655 John Pettigrew November
(Deputy Director 2006
Officer’s Recommendation Report –
Engineering
Development Application for Prescribed
Services)
Tidal Works
Contract T01/06-07 Correspondence –Cardwell Shire Council 22 June
Construction of a to Jenkins Earthmoving 2007
Seawall at Tully
Heads
Construction of Rock Correspondence – Condition A1C3 – 1 February
wall, Taylor Street, Results of Site Inspection undertaken by 2008
Tully Heads, at and EPA officer on Thursday 17 January 2008
adjacent to Lot 10
CWL802853
Reference
Report on Stability of - GHD 1992
Seawall, Tully Heads
Seawall
Post Yasi Cylcone Section of report GHD 2011
Inspections, Tully
Heads Rock Seawall
Restoration of - J T Smith and March
Seawalls and other Associates Pty Ltd 2011
Works, South Mission
Beach and Tully
Heads
Tully Heads and Hull Final Report BMT WBM April 2009
Heads Shoreline
Erosion Management
Plan
Other Documents Received (Outside Scope)
Drawing BP97.02 Installation of a Trial Groyne at Tully Heads Cardwell Shire 1997
Council
Project 243333 File Appendix A - Document Register.docx 24 October 2014 Revision 1 Page 2
Appendix B
Option Assessment
Drawings
CONCEPT DESIGN
TULLY HEADS SEAWALL
TIDAL LEVELS * SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS GENERAL NOTES:

DRAWING No. DESCRIPTION
1. THE POSITION AND DIMENSIONS OF SEAWALL OPTIONS
LEVEL AHD (m) 243333-0000-DRG-LA-0001 DRAWING SCHEDULE AND NOTES ARE INDICATIVE ONLY.
2. DRAWINGS SHALL BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH TULLY
HAT 1.94 243333-0000-DRG-LA-0002 SITE LAYOUT
HEADS SEAWALL OPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT
MHWS 1.04 243333-0000-DRG-LA-0003 SEAWALL OPTION 1 - TYPICAL SECTIONS 3. THE SEAWALL IS ONLY AN EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURE
MHWN AND IS NOT DESIGNED FOR FLOOD CONTROL
0.33 243333-0000-DRG-LA-0004 SEAWALL OPTIONS 2 & 3 - TYPICAL SECTIONS 4. EXISTING SOIL ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY
MSL 0.05 243333-0000-DRG-LA-0005 SEAWALL OPTIONS - PUBLIC ACCESS STAIR
MLWN -0.19
MLWS -0.89
LAT -1.68 GREENHOUSE EFFECT
* - TIDAL LEVELS ASSUMED TO BE SIMILAR TO CLUMP POINT 1. SEA LEVEL RISE = 0.3m (2064)
STORM TIDE LEVELS ** SCOUR ALLOWANCE

1. SEAWALL TOE IS BURIED TO LAT (-1.68m AHD)
AVERAGE RECURRENCE PRESENT SEA LEVEL 2064 SEA LEVEL
INTERVAL (A.R.I. YEAR) (m AHD) (m AHD)
50 2.25 2.55
** - BASED ON CARDWELL INUNDATION STUDY

Filename: P:\MRN\243333_CASSOWARYCOASTSEAWALLS\3 PROJECT DELIVERY\CADD\DRAWINGS\243333-0000-DRG-LA-0001.DWG
DESIGN PARAMETERS
AVERAGE RECURRENCE WATER LEVEL WIND SPEED SIGNIFICANT WAVE DESIGN WAVE PEAK
INTERVAL (A.R.I. YEAR) (m AHD) (m/s) # HEIGHT Hs (m) PERIOD Tp (s)
50 2.55 34.7 2.75 5 to 7
# - WIND SPEED IS PER AUS STD AS1170.2 (HOURLY SPEED AT 10m/s)

Office: AUBNE
Plot Date: 15/12/2014 12:55:10 PM
CLIENT REV DATE REVISION DETAILS APPROVED SCALE SIZE

PRELIMINARY PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN SEAWALL
A 15.12.14 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW GC NOT TO SCALE A1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TULLY HEADS
DRAWN
K.HADZIVUKOVIC
APPROVED
. DATE
DRAWING SCHEDULE AND NOTES
TITLE
DESIGNED
J.FARNES
CHECKED PROJECT No. WBS TYPE DISC NUMBER REV
DRAWING No.
243333 0000 DRG LA 0001 A
TULLY RIVER
GALMAHRA ST
2AP5889
43T9482 1RP738156 14T9486 15T9486 16T9486 17T9486 18T9486 19T9486 20T9486

1RP735394
1AP5889
40T9482 12T9487 11T9487 10T9487 9T9487 8T9487 7T9487
37T9482 36T9482 35T9482 25T9486 24T9486 22RP846516 12T9486 11T9486 10T9486 9T9486 8T9486 7T9486 6T9486 5T9486 1RP738155 2T9486 1T9486
38T9482
642T9484 39T9482 TAYLOR ST
TAYLOR ST 14T9485 15T9485 16T9485 17T9485 18T9485

13T9485
TOP OF EXISTING
13T9484
SEAWALL
4RP736730
26T9482 25T9482 24T9482 23T9482 22T9482 16T9482 912T9482 911T9482 910T9482 909T9482 908T9482 907T9482 906T9482 905T9482 904T9482 903T9482 902T9482 901T9482 9T9483 2RP865399 1RP865399 2T9483 1T9483
27T9482
28T9482
3RP736730 BEACH12T9485
ACCESS 11T9485 10T9485 9T9485 8T9485 7T9485
(PRIVATELY BUILT)
TOP OF
EXISTING
SEAWALL
CARRON ESP
CARRON ESP
HAT 10CWL802853
HAT
MHWS
TOE OF MHWS
EXISTING TOE OF
LOCATION OF EXISTING
SEAWALL PROPOSED CREST EXISTING
SURFACE FOR CROSS
SECTION PURPOSES REPAIR EXTENT. SEAWALL

PROPOSED PROPOSED REFER TO SECTION 4
E SEAWALL EXTENT
PUBLIC OF THE OPTION
ACCESS STAIR ASSESSMENT REPORT
X
SEAWALL 1 SEAWALL 2
LEGEND NOTES
Office: AUBNE
1. AERIAL IMAGE CIRCA 2011

WARNING SIGN LOCATION (APPROXIMATE)
READING: "ROCK WALL MAY BE UNSTABLE. TO
Plot Date: 15/12/2014 12:53:12 PM
AVOID INJURY DO NOT CLIMB OR CROSS WALLS"

PRELIMINARY PROJECT
A 15.12.14 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW GC 1:1000 A1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TULLY HEADS
DRAWN APPROVED
S.LEMON . DATE
DESIGNED
TITLE SITE LAYOUT
J.FARNES
DRAWING No.
243333 0000 DRG LA 0002 A
CREST ROCKS
CREST ROCKS M 50 = 6000kg APPROX.
M 50 = 6000kg APPROX. PATTERN PLACED
PATTERN PLACED
3200 (MIN.) ARMOUR ROCKS
RL 4.00 (NOM.) ARMOUR ROCKS RL 4.00 (NOM.) M 50 = 3000kg
1.5 M 50 = 3000kg THICKNESS = 2100mm (MIN.)
RL 3.50 RL 3.50
1 THICKNESS = 2100mm (MIN.)
(APPROX.) (APPROX.)
RL 2.55 RL 2.55
DESIGN WATER LEVEL DESIGN
1.5 WATER LEVEL
3200 (MIN.) RL 1.94 (HAT)
1
RL 1.04 (MHWS)
EXISTING SURFACE EXISTING ROCK ARMOUR TO BE

(REF. NOTE 2)
RELOCATED. LAYER THICKNESS EXISTING SURFACE
RL 0.05 (MSL)
SHALL BE GREATER THAN (REF. NOTE 2)
RL 0.00 (AHD) 1000mm. ALL HOLES TO BE FILLED
EXISTING ROCK ARMOUR TO BE ADDITIONAL ROCKS
RELOCATED. LAYER THICKNESS 1
RL -0.89 (MLWS) M 50 = 300kg
SHALL BE GREATER THAN 1
1000mm. ALL HOLES TO BE FILLED THICKNESS = 1000mm (MIN.)
RL -1.68 (LAT)
ADDITIONAL ROCKS
EXISTING ROCK
M 50 = 300kg
PROTECTION/SEAWALL TO BE
CONFIRMED BY SURVEY THICKNESS = 1000mm (MIN.)
SECTION XA OPTION 1 - VARIANT A SECTION XB OPTION 1 - VARIANT B

1:50 -
REVETMENT REPAIR WITH BURIED TOE 1:50 - REVETMENT REPAIR WITH SURFACE TOE
CREST ROCKS
M 50 = 6000kg APPROX.
PATTERN PLACED
RL 4.00 (NOM.) ARMOUR ROCKS

RL 3.50 1.5 M 50 = 3000kg
(APPROX.)
1 THICKNESS = 2100mm (MIN.)
RL 2.55
3200 (MIN.) DESIGN WATER LEVEL
RL 1.94 (HAT)
1.5
1
GEOTEXTILE
ELCOMAX 600R RL 1.04 (MHWS)
(OR EQUIVALENT)
EXISTING SURFACE
(REF. NOTE 2)
RL 0.05 (MSL)
RL 0.00 (AHD)
SECONDARY ARMOUR RL -0.89 (MLWS)

1
M 50 = 300kg
1 RL -1.68 (LAT)
THICKNESS = 1000mm (MIN.)
NEW PROFILE
SECTION XC OPTION 1 - VARIANT C

1:50 - TOTAL ROCK REVETMENT RECONSTRUCTION
NOTES:
Office: AUBNE
1. REFER DRG. LA-0001 FOR NOTES.

2. EXISTING SURFACE VARIES. REFER DRG.
Plot Date: 15/12/2014 2:37:51 PM
LA-0002 FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING

SURFACE SHOWN ON OPTION SECTIONS.
3. ALL LEVELS IN METRES TO AHD.
4. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNO.

PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DRAWN
S.LEMON
APPROVED
. DATE
SEAWALL OPTION 1
DESIGNED
TITLE TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
J.FARNES
DRAWING No.
243333 0000 DRG LA 0003 A
REINFORCED TURF
SURFACING 710
CONCRETE CREST RL 4.00 (NOM.) TYP.
TYP.
RL 3.50
380
RL 3.50 (APPROX.)
(APPROX.) GEOCONTAINERS
RL 2.55 RL 2.55
DESIGN WATER LEVEL DESIGN WATER LEVEL
1.5
RL 1.94 (HAT)
1
REINFORCED CONCRETE
RL 1.04 (MHWS) SEAWALL
ROCK SCOUR
EXISTING SURFACE
EXISTING SURFACE PROTECTION (REF. NOTE 2)
(REF. NOTE 2)
RL 0.05 (MSL)
ENGINEERED RL 0.00 (AHD) ENGINEERED
1.5
FILL FILL
RL -0.89 (MLWS) 1 1
MOISTURE
1 BARRIER 1
RL -1.68 (LAT)
1
NEW PROFILE
2400
GEOTEXTILE ELCOMAX PRECAST REINFORCED ARMOUR ROCKS
600R (OR EQUIVALENT) CONCRETE TOE M 50 = 3000kg
ROCK SIZE TO BE
00
THICKNESS = 2100mm (MIN.)

18
CONFIRMED PENDING
600
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION.
SECTION A OPTION 2 SECTION C OPTION 3

1:50 - GEOCONTAINER SEAWALL 1:50 -
REINFORCED CONCRETE STEPPED SEAWALL
NOTES:
Office: AUBNE

Plot Date: 15/12/2014 12:55:54 PM


PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DRAWN
S.LEMON
APPROVED
. DATE
SEAWALL OPTIONS 2 & 3
DESIGNED
TITLE TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
J.FARNES
DRAWING No.
243333 0000 DRG LA 0004 A
TIMBER ACCESS STAIRS
AND HANDRAILING (TO
B.C.A. STANDARDS)
RL 4.65 NOM.
RL 3.50
(APPROX.)
RL 2.55
DESIGN WATER LEVEL
RL 1.94 (HAT)
RL 1.04 (MHWS)
EXISTING SURFACE
(REF. NOTE 2)
RL 0.05 (MSL)
RL 0.00 (AHD)
RL -0.89 (MLWS) DRIVEN PILES

(8 TOTAL)
RL -1.68 (LAT) ADDITIONAL ROCK AND

GEOTEXTILE BELOW
CONCRETE STAIR BASE
REFER SECTION D ON
DRG. LA-0003 FOR TYPICAL
ROCK SEAWALL DETAILS.
SECTION E PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS STAIR

1:50 LA-0002
NOTES:
Office: AUBNE

Plot Date: 15/12/2014 12:44:56 PM


PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DRAWN
S.LEMON
APPROVED
. DATE
SEAWALL OPTIONS
DESIGNED
TITLE PUBLIC ACCESS STAIR
J.FARNES
DRAWING No.
243333 0000 DRG LA 0005 A
Appendix C
Approved Plans of
Development – existing
Seawall 1 and Seawall 2
C1 – Sanctioned Plans under Section 86 of the Harbours Act 1955 (repealed) prepared
by GHD, dated 1992 – Seawall 1
C2 – Sanctioned Plans under Section 86 of the Harbours Act 1955 (repealed) prepared
by the former Cardwell Shire Council, dated 1996 – Extension of Seawall 1
C3 – Sanctioned Plans under Development Permit for Operational Works that are
Prescribed Tidal Works prepared by International Coastal Management, dated
December 2006 (Permit IPCC00419906C11) – Seawall 2
416348:JWP/tn
15 December 2006
Decision Notice
APPROVAL
Integrated Planning Act 1997 S 3.5.15
D/A146/06
John Pettigrew (Deputy Director, Engineering Services)
07 40439101
Cardwell Shire Council

PO Box 401
TULLY QLD 4854
Dear Sir
RE: Application for Prescribed Tidal Works (Installation of a Rock Wall)

Taylor Street, Tully Heads (Reserve)
Lot 10 on CWL802853; Parish of Rockingham
I wish to advise that, on 14 December 2006, the above development application was -
approved in full;
OR
approved in part;
OR
approved in full with conditions. The conditions relevant to this approval are attached.
These conditions are clearly identified to indicate whether the assessment manager or
a concurrence agency imposed them;
OR
approved in part with conditions.
Page 1
Planning Services 4043 9101

4068 1772
1. Details of the approval -
The following type of approval has been issued - Development Preliminary

Permit Approval
• Carrying out building work (assessable against the Standard Building

Regulation 1993)
• Reconfiguring a lot
• Material change of use made assessable by the planning scheme;

• Associated work made assessable by the planning scheme -
• building works
• operational works
• Material change of use for an environmentally relevant activity
• Material change of use for a licensed brothel
• Material change of use on strategic port land, inconsistent with an

approved land use plan
• Making a material change of use for a major hazard facility or
possible major hazard facility
• Planning scheme works -
• building works
• operational works
• Operational works for the clearing of native vegetation on land
protected under the Vegetation Management Act
• Operational work for a referable dam or that will increase the
storage capacity of a referable dam by more than 10%
• Operational work for tidal work or work within a coastal
management district
• Development for removing quarry material from a watercourse or
lake (if an allocation notice is required under the Water Act 2000)
• Operational work that allow taking, or interfering with, water
(other than using a water truck to pump water)
• Development in a heritage registered place -
• Building work assessable against the Standard Building Regulation
1993
• Building work assessable against the planning scheme
• Material change of use
• Reconfiguring a lot
• Operational work
2. The relevant period -
the standard relevancy periods stated in section 3.5.21 of IPA apply to each aspect of
development in this approval;
Page 2
OR
An alternative relevant period.
3. The approved plans -

The approved plans and / or documents for this development approval are listed in the
following table -
Plan / Document Plan / Document Name Date
Number
TH-A3-01 Location & Site Plan – Erosion 1/3/2006
Protection Works prepared by
International Coastal Management
TH-A3-02 Plan – Erosion Protection Works 1/3/2006

prepared by International Coastal
Management
TH-A3-03 X-Section – Erosion Protection Works 1/3/2006

prepared by International Coastal
Management
4. Other necessary development permits – Nil.
5. Codes for self-assessable development – Not applicable.
6. Superseded planning scheme – Not applicable.
7. Preliminary approval overriding the planning scheme – Not applicable.
8. IDAS referral agencies -

The IDAS referral agencies applicable to this application are –
A. Referrals - triggered by building work assessable against the Standard

Building Regulation 1993 – Nil.
B. Referrals – triggered by other assessable development under schedule 8 of

the IPA
OPERATIONAL WORK
Operational work… Name of agency Status Address

1. For filling or excavation Dept. of Main Roads Concurrence
(not associated with reconfiguration)
Advice
impacting on a State-
controlled road
2. For clearing native Dept. of Natural Concurrence
vegetation Resources & Mines
Page 3
3. That allows taking or Dept. of Natural Concurrence
interfering with water Resources & Mines
under the Water Act 2000
4. Controlling the flow of Dept. of Natural Concurrence
water in drainage and Resources & Mines
embankment areas
5. For a referable dam or that Dept. of Natural Concurrence
will increase the storage of Resources, Mines &
a referable dam by more than Energy
10%
6. That is tidal work other than Environmental Cairns District Office
Concurrence
Prescribed Tidal Work in a Protection Agency (EPA)
Canal. PO Box 2066
CAIRNS QLD 4870
7. Within a coastal Environmental Concurrence
management district, that Protection Agency &
is the disposing of dredge Qld Transport
spoil or other solid waste
material in tidal water, other
than under an allocation
notice under the Coastal
Protection and Management
Act 1995
management district, for Protection Agency
draining or allowing drainage
or flow of water or other
matter across State coastal
lands above high water mark
management district, in a Protection Agency
watercourse and not
assessable under schedule 8,
part 3, items 3B and 3C of
the IPA
10. Within a coastal management Environmental Concurrence
district, that is reclaiming Protection Agency
land under tidal water and Qld Transport
management district, that Protection Agency
is constructing an artificial and Qld Transport
waterway associated with
reconfiguration
Page 4
is constructing an artificial
waterway not associated with
reconfiguration, on land other
than State coastal land,
above high water mark if the
surface area of water in the
waterway is at lease 5 000m2
is constructing a bank or
bund wall to establish a
ponded pasture on land,
other than State coastal land,
above high water mark
is removing or interfering
with coastal dunes on land
other than State coastal land,
that is in an erosion prone
area and above high water
mark.
15. That is tidal work that Queensland Fire and Advice
involves a marina with Rescue Service
more than 6 vessel berths
ALL ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT
Development… Name of agency Status Address

16. Below high water mark The Port Authority for Concurrence
and within the limits of a port the land Advice
17. For the removal of quarry Environmental Concurrence

material if an allocation Protection Agency
notice is required under the
Water Act 2000
18. In a heritage registered Queensland Heritage Concurrence
place Council
19. For a mobile and Environmental Concurrence
temporary Protection Agency
environmentally relevant
activities (ERA)
C. Referrals – triggered by the assessment of the application against a local

government planning instrument – Nil.
Page 5
9. Submissions -
The application was not subject to public notification and therefore no submissions were
received.
10. Appeal rights -

Attached is an extract from the Integrated Planning Act 1997 which details your appeal
rights regarding this decision.
11. When the development approval takes effect -

This development approval takes effect -
• from the time the decision notice is given, if there is no submitter and the applicant
does not appeal the decision to the court
OR
• when the submitter’s appeal period ends, if there is a submitter and the applicant
does not appeal the decision to the court
OR
• subject to the decision of the court, when the appeal is finally decided, if an appeal is
made to the court.
This approval will lapse unless substantially started within the above stated currency periods
(refer to sections 3.5.19 and 3.5.20 of IPA for further details).
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Council’s Deputy Director,
Engineering Services, Mr John Pettigrew, on the above telephone number.
Yours faithfully
MARK KELLEHER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
cc: Referral agency
Environmental Protection Agency

Cairns District Office
PO Box 2066
CAIRNS QLD 4870
Page 6
ASSESSMENT MANAGER’S CONDITIONS:
1. Works are to be performed generally in accordance with plans dated 1

March 2006 and documentation submitted to Council on 15 May 2006 by
International Coastal Management all relating to Development
Application No. 146/06.
2. Prior to the commencement of any construction, the Design Engineers

must submit certification that the design complies with all requirements
of the “IDAS Code for Development Applications for Prescribed Tidal
Works”.
Concurrence Agency Conditions:
Prescribed Tidal Work

Agency Interest: Coastal - structures
EPA Permit Number: IPCC00419906C11

Assessment Manager reference: 146/06
Date application received by EPA: 02-JUN-2006
Permit Type: Concurrence Response for Operational
Work
Decision: Granted in full with conditions
Relevant Laws and Policies: Coastal Protection and Management Act
1995 and any subordinate legislation.
Jurisdiction: Item 9 in Table 2 of Schedule 2 of the

Integrated Planning Regulation 1998.
Development Description
Property Lot/Plan Aspect of Development
Carron Esplanade, Lot 10 Plan CWL802853 Prescribed Tidal Work -

Tully Heads and adjacent to Lot 1 and Rock Revetment
2 RP865399.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
(A1C1) All works are to be constructed in accordance with the attached

approved drawings listed in the approved plans section in the notice
attached to this concurrence agency response.
(A1C2) Record, compile and keep all monitoring results required by this
document and present this information to the Environmental Protection
Agency upon request.
(A1C3) Sand nourishment to cover the rock revetment must be

commenced immediately following the completion of the rock revetment
and must be completed within thirty (30) days. The sand nourishment to
Page 7
be undertaken to cover the rock revetment must be to a minimum level of
RL2.0 metres (Australian Height Datum), and maintained to this level, with
a profile slope 1 on 4.
(A1C4) If the erosion scarp at the pocket beach adjacent to the Public
Park Reserve (Lot 9 on T9483) advances onto this Reserve, sand
nourishment must be immediately undertaken and maintained to the
profile as shown on Cardwell Shire Council drawing 3811, Sh. 2 of 2, and
be completed within thirty (30) days. The end walls (wings) of the rock
revetment must be covered with sand at all times to ensure erosion does
not progress in behind the rock revetment.
(A1C5) Monitoring (beach profile surveying) must be undertaken at a

distance of 25 and 50 metres north of the northern end wall of the
revetment. Such monitoring must be undertaken annually, and this
monitoring information be made available to the EPA upon request.
(A1C6) All temporary works associated with the construction of the

revetment wall are to be removed from the site at the completion of the
works and all wastes shall be collected from the site by the permittee and
disposed of at a licensed waste facility.
(A1C7) All reasonable and practicable measures must be taken to

prevent contamination of the beach and coastal waters as a result of silt
run-off, oil and grease spills from machinery and concrete truck washout.
Concrete agitator wash out must only be conducted in a specified area to
facilitate the removal of waste concrete from the area to landfill.
Wastewater from cleaning equipment must not be discharged directly or
in-directly to any watercourses or stormwater systems.
(A1C8) No sand is to be removed from the coastal dune system within

the erosion prone area or coastal management district. Material identified
as untreated Potential or Actual Acid Sulfate Soil is excluded from this
requirement provided the material is sufficiently treated to prevent the
release of contaminants to water.
(A1C9) All organically enriched sand removed from the top layer
(topsoil) within the proposed development area must be stockpiled
separately prior to excavation and used landward of the crest of the
revetment wall. On completion of the works any excess organically
enriched sand material may be removed from the site. The area landward
from the crest of the revetment wall must be maintained as a pedestrian
and maintenance access.
(A1C10) Acid sulfate soils must be managed such that contaminants are
not directly or indirectly released from the works to any waters.
Page 8
(A1C11) The sand being placed on the beach shall be clean and free of silt,
clay, organic material or any other deleterious substance and must be of a
grain size compatible with the existing beach sand.
(A1C12) The Cardwell Shire Council shall be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of the revetment wall and the removal of any debris from the
beach as a result of any damage to the wall.
DEFINITIONS:
Words and phrases used throughout this permit are defined below. Where a
definition for a term used in this permit is sought and the term is not defied within
this permit the definitions provided in the relevant legislation shall be used.
“administering authority” means the Environmental Protection Agency or its

successor.
“approval” means ‘notice of development application decision’ or ‘notice of

concurrence agency response’ under the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
“approved plans” means the plans and documents listed in the approved plans
section in the notice attached to this development approval.
“artifical waterway” means an artificial channel, lake or other body of water.

Artificial waterway includes –
• An artificial channel that is formed because the land has been reclaimed from
tidal water and is intended to allow boating access to allotments on subdivided
land;
• Other artificial channels subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; and
• Any additions or alterations to an artificial waterway.
“canal” means an artificial waterway surrendered to the State. A canal is an artificial

waterway connected, or intended to be connected, to tidal water; and from which
boating access to the tidal water is not hindered by a lock, weir or similar structure.
“coastal dune” means a ridge or hillock of sand or other material on the coast and
built up by the wind.
“dredge spoil” means material taken from the bed or banks of waters by using
dredging equipment or other equipment designed for use in extraction of earthen
material.
“Environmental Protection Agency” means the department or agency (whatever

called) administering the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 or the
Environmental Protection Act 1994.
“erosion prone area” means an area declared to be an erosion prone area under
section 70(1) of the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995.
“high water mark” means the ordinary high water mark at spring tides.
Page 9
“ponded pasture” means the ordinary high water mark at spring tides.
“quarry material” means material on State coastal land, other than a mineral
within the meaning of any Act relating to mining. Material includes for example
stone, gravel, rock, clay, mud, silt and soil, unless it is removed from a culvert,
stormwater drain or other drainage infrastructure as waste material.
“site” means land or tidal waters on or in which it is proposed to carry out the
development approved under this development approval.
“tidal water” means the sea and any part of a harbour or watercourse ordinarily
within the ebb and flow of the tide at spring tides.
“watercourse” means a river, creek or stream in which water flows permanently or

intermittently –
• In a natural channel, whether artificially improved or not; or
• In an artificial channel that has changed the course of the
watercourse.
“waters” includes river, stream, lake, lagoon, pond, swamp, wetland, unconfined
surface water, unconfined water natural or artificial watercourse, bed and bank of
any waters, dams, non-tidal or tidal waters (including the sea), stormwater
channel, stormwater drain, roadside gutter, stormwater run-off, and groundwater
and any part thereof.
“works” or “operation” means the development approved under this development

approval.
“you” means the holder of this development approval or owner/occupier of the land
which is the subject of this development approval.
APPROVED PLANS:
Plan/Document Plan/Document Name Date

No.
TH-A3-01 Location and Site Plan 1/03/06
TH-A3-02 Rev.B Plan 1/03/06
TH-A3-03 Rev.A X-Section 1/03/06
3811 Cross Section Adjacent to Aug 06
pocket beach (Lot 9 T9483)
Showing Profile to be
maintained by council.
End of Conditions.
Page 10
Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd
ABN 54 005 139 873
Level 1, 242 Mulgrave Road
Cairns QLD 4870
PO Box 7625
Cairns QLD 4870
Australia
T +61 7 4019 6400
F +61 7 4051 2540
E cairns@aurecongroup.com
W aurecongroup.com
Aurecon offices are located in:

Angola, Australia, Botswana, Chile, China,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia,
Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria,
Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

2015-07-09 - Item 5.8 - Attach 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2015-07-09 - Item 5.8 - Attach 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015-07-09 - Item 5.8 - Attach 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tully Heads and Hull Heads Seawall 4 June 2015

Renewal Project Revision: 1

Date 4 June 2015

Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1

Tully Heads Seawall Background

 Option 1 – Rock armoured revetment

 Option 2 – Geocontainer revetment - approx. $10,300,000

 Option 3 – Reinforced concrete seawall - approx. $26,100,000

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page I Page I

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page II Page II

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page IV Page IV

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page V Page V

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page VI Page VI

 Establish design criteria associated with the seawall design

 Undertake an option assessment of five coastal revetment options

 Carry out a multi-criteria analysis to identify a preferred option

1.3 Assumptions and limitations

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 1

2.1 Locality and subject site

Figure 2-1 Locality plan of the existing seawalls at Tully Heads

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 2

Table 2-1 Summary of land tenure within the Project footprint

Lot Plan Tenure Ownership/Lessee Wall Section

Figure 2-2 Project site land tenure

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 3

Table 2-2 Tully Heads Seawall chronology

Date Event Comment

2.4 Previous studies

2.4.2 Shoreline erosion management plan (SEMP) - 2009

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 4

2.4.4 Post-Yasi cyclone inspection - 2011

2.5 Desktop design review

 Primary armour rock mass of 1t to 2t

 Slope no steeper than 1v:1.5h

 Crest level at 3.7 m AHD and toe at approximately -2.36 m AHD

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 5

Tide Level (m to AHD)

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 6

2.6.3 Geotechnical conditions

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 7

3.1 Design considerations

 Have reduced environmental and visual impact.

3.1.2 Statutory requirements

 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011

 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, 1975

 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act)

 Relevant Commonwealth and State legislation (Acts and regulations)

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 8

 Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (FNQROC) Development Manual

 Any other authority having jurisdiction over the site

AO10.1 Development adjacent to state coastal land or tidal water:

3.1.3 Design standards

Table 3-1 Key standards used in seawall design

Key Standards and Usage

Designation Title Typical Usage

Project 243333 File OptionAssessmentReport.docx 4 June 2015 Revision 1 Page 9

Designation Title Typical Usage