This project looks at the risks of coastal erosion and flooding around the Scamander River Mouth. During big storms, high tides and floodwaters can combine – and sometimes the river mouth (barway) gets blocked. These events can damage public and private property and affect how we use and enjoy the area. It is about understanding how this natural area works and changes, how it affects everyone, and how we can plan for the future – especially as climate change makes these challenges more unpredictable. You can find more on the project webpage here.



We'd like your comments on the draft Scamander Coastal Hazards and Pathways Adaptation Plan.

The Plan evaluates three coastal hazard mitigation options focussing on the Dune Street shoreline. These options are detailed in a ‘Memorandum’ report and the first question here is about those. See the project webpage for more details, or use the links to the reports here: Draft Adaptation Pathways Plan and Memorandum Report on coastal hazard mitigation options at Dune Street.

Use this form to submit your comments on the Plan by 15 March. It has questions on sections of the draft Plan and you can skip ones you're not interested in.

Your thoughts will help shape the final Adaptation Pathways Plan.
Mitigation options at Dune Street

The three options detailed in the Memorandum Report and tested in the Adaption Pathways Plan range from low to high levels of intervention:
  • A low key nature-based solution (NBS) to address erosion in the short term
  • A hybrid NBS/hard seawall to address longer term erosion and small wave runup with a low bund
  • A higher seawall/flood levee to address erosion and inundation in the long term.

Question Title

* 1. What do you think of the three options, what they aim to do, how and their costs?

Question Title

* 2. Are there other treatments you’d suggest could be used for them or different mitigation actions that can reduce shoreline erosion and or inundation risks over time?


The Adaptation Pathways Study

Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Draft Plan address the scope and process of the study, adaptation principles, coastal processes at the river mouth and the assets and values at risk.

Question Title

* 3. What do you think about the approach taken for this study: focussing on Dune Street shoreline, the cost-benefit evaluation of options to manage the risks and values affected and application to the other shorelines?


Hazard Management Hotspots and Dune Street

Several key shorelines with slightly different coastal and flood hazard exposure, assets at risk and adaptation needs are identified in the Draft Plan. The river mouth channel threatened Dune Street in recent years and this shoreline is the focus of the cost/benefit evaluation. And it finds a good return from the lightest short term option and a negative result from the third major intervention option.

Question Title

* 4. For the Dune Street shoreline (Section 5.1 in the report), what do you think of the assessment of risks, assets, ‘do nothing’ base case and the three potential adaptation strategies defined for it?

Question Title

* 5. What do you think of the cost/benefit analysis of these options, the outcome, and implications for adaptation planning for Dune Street shoreline? Where have you doubts?

Question Title

* 6. What do you think of the other adaptation options raised during the project and reviewed by the report - rebuilding a training wall, rivulet connection to Falmouth and planned retreat?

Question Title

* 7. The findings for Dune Street are related to the other hotspot shorelines: ‘Pelican Sands’ (northern mouth shore) and Bridge Esplanade, and two minor ones (Sections 5.2, 5.3 & 5.4). Have you any comments or suggestions for these other shorelines and applying the findings for Dune Street to them?

Next Steps and Recommendations

The Draft Scamander Coastal Hazards and Pathways Adaptation Plan recommendations (Section 6) include a review of early ‘no regrets’ actions for the key shorelines, taking modest rather than costly heavy mitigation actions initially, and changes to land use and development planning controls. It also outlines pathways of progressive and planned adaptation actions and triggers for the shorelines into the future (Section 6.2).

Question Title

* 8. Do you support the recommendations in the draft Plan?

  Yes Somewhat No
'No regrets’ actions (p.49)
Modest rather than aggressive mitigation actions initially (p.50)
Changes to planning controls to avoid risks (p.50)
Pathways of progressive and planned adaptation actions (p.52-53)
Other recommendations (p.51)

Question Title

* 9. What is it about the recommendations you do or don't agree with? Have you different views on what the findings mean for managing coastal and flood risks at the River Mouth now and in future?

Question Title

* 10. What ideas do you have for using the Pathways Adaptation Plan to reduce risks to properties, infrastructure and the environment from the complex coastal and flood risks over the long term at the Scamander River Mouth?

Final comments

Question Title

* 11. Do you have any other thoughts or comments you'd like to add?

Question Title

* 12. If you are happy to, we would like to know who you are, where you are from and email contact details to let you know about the final Plan and project.

Question Title

* 13. Where are you from?

For more information about this project, visit https://www.bodc.tas.gov.au/council/current-works-2/

T